# Tarantula Memory



## Sean (May 24, 2003)

Do tarantula's have memortys like do they remember things or do there brains/minds dont work like that??? Im intrested to know if anyone does know


----------



## RugbyDave (May 24, 2003)

hey there

now for something ive been studying for a loooong time: the brain.

Now, who can really say.
and it depends on how youre using 'memory' --

like, do they remember where their burrow is? Probably? Is it from higher brain fxns? Probably not.. More likely due to small strands of silk and chemical "smell" -- (i use 'smell' very loosley

do they remember leaving the egg sac and maturing like we do? again, probably not..


 its important to not get instinct and memory mixed up, you know. I did all my graduate and post graduate studies in Neuro-Coginitive disoders, with a large large focus on memory linkage. Now im in med school going for neurology....We studied memory on other species *heavily* (besides humans and chimps, by the way).

The first thing anyone should learn is that memory is a total-brain-function. There's not just ONE area of the brain specializing in memory. There are parts of the brain where memories are localized, but to recall a memory, there needs to be a large chain reaction of potassium (and a ton of other chemical messengers travelling between synapes and neuronal junctions) and ion channels opening up and closing in an exact replica of the original memory... that's put VERY VERY simply...

now the problem is, how do we get from potassium and ion channels to remembering what an orange smells like, or recalling the face a really cute girl (or boy) from 8th grade? 

 in order for all these things to be percieved by us, the human, our cerebral cortext (the 'grey matter' or outer cortex) needs to become a central meeting place. in other words, all the stimuli and information coming in from the thalamus and the rest of the brain eventually makes its way to the surface where it is deciphered and translated.

Where am i going with all of this?
well, tarantulas (and, consequently, NO other creatures) have cerebral cortexes. Well, monkeys do have a very basic cortex, but its not used in the same was as ours, and they can't speak since their anatomy doesn't resemble ours (they don't have a larynx or a set of vocal folds). Part of our evolution has been our ability to um, well, evolve a cerebral cortex. It is basically what gives us the ability to love, hate, dream, ideal, form opinions, etc. It's at the root of what really differentiates YOU from ME.... Without these bundles of myelinated axons and specialized nerves, none of our "human" natures would exist (speech, memory, cognition, racism, ideals and opinions and thoughts.....). This is a known fact. Chalk it up to pure evolution, a god, or whatever, but either way its fact 

can animals be conditioned? a hardy YES!!!!   can that be twisted to become emotions? Well, yes, some people do attach human emotions to animals.. there's nothing wrong with it.. we learn it from around age 1 ('symbolistic play', i believe Piaget termed it).. but it is important to remember that most spiders will never be tamed, unlike dogs.. Now who can say if we can ever change that...??? Hell, we've supposedly gone up to the freaking moon, right? =D

remember, we gave up instinct to get higher brain functions. T's retain instinct, but don't get the same brain as us 

i hope this hasn't been confusing. I think it's pretty easy to understand.

let's keep this going.. T's are a large part of my life, and neurology is a deep deep love of mine..  .. hell i've spent a long time studying and learning it! It'd be interesting to see what other people think!

peace
dave


----------



## MrT (May 24, 2003)

I can't remember a thing you just said. 
What?

Ernie


BTW, I'm just messing with ya.


----------



## RugbyDave (May 24, 2003)

gotcha 

later
dave


----------



## Sean (May 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RugbyDave _
> *hey there
> 
> now for something ive been studying for a loooong time: the brain.
> ...


Thats very intresting dave, i figure they would know where the burrow is thats instinct, but say i bought an usambara yesterday and at the pet store the guy had a hard time getting her out, and completely destroyed her burrow and pissed the thing off it was biting at the tongs and hissing and everything else, could it possible remember a stresful experience like that or no?


----------



## Code Monkey (May 24, 2003)

A simpler answer to the question is yes, but not for long. I've both seen myself, as well as read many reports from other T owners, that show they form associations with various stimuli. So long as that stimuli/associated result is reinforced every week or two the T will remember. However, let the reinforcement not be there for a few weeks and the memory goes away.

It's probably a primitive form of memory formed by the strengthening of particular nerve pathways in their cognitive portions of their nervous system. So long as whatever it is they're remembering keeps up frequently, the pathway remains reinforced and is remembered. But as soon as the regular stimuli stops, the pathways lose their boosting and return to a normal state.


----------



## Sean (May 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Code Monkey _
> *A simpler answer to the question is yes, but not for long. I've both seen myself, as well as read many reports from other T owners, that show they form associations with various stimuli. So long as that stimuli/associated result is reinforced every week or two the T will remember. However, let the reinforcement not be there for a few weeks and the memory goes away.
> 
> It's probably a primitive form of memory formed by the strengthening of particular nerve pathways in their cognitive portions of their nervous system. So long as whatever it is they're remembering keeps up frequently, the pathway remains reinforced and is remembered. But as soon as the regular stimuli stops, the pathways lose their boosting and return to a normal state. *


So if i understand correctly your theory is the only way they could remember something if it continued to happen over and over again??? Makes since, so something that happend 6 months ago was a one time thing the T wouldnt remember, im sorry if i seem stupid i just find it intresting


----------



## Kenny (May 24, 2003)

*Well*

Dave had it all in his answer..


----------



## RugbyDave (May 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Code Monkey _
> *It's probably a primitive form of memory formed by the strengthening of particular nerve pathways in their cognitive portions of their nervous system. So long as whatever it is they're remembering keeps up frequently, the pathway remains reinforced and is remembered *


I did say that alot of people note that animals can be conditioned, but as for T's, the conditioning won't stay. I'm going to say this, that I don't think you could 'train' a T to walk onto a button to get a 'treat' of a cricket, as we can do with pigeons and mice (and, i just saw in the lab that they're doing this with FROGS!!! thats pretty cool!)

EVERYTHING will repsond to stimuli, but that DOESN'T translate to memory. Hell, if you push a saftey pin into any animal, it will respond. With humans, its pain and hitting and screaming, and with an ant, its something as simple as noiciceptors firing off with some basic response (is it pain? Im not sure, im not an entomologist studying pain reception).. and even with amoebas, they will undulate away. ANY time ANY stimulus is given, a response is shown. The responses, however, do differ.

See, i would not classify that as memory. I would classify that more as a primitive form of 'conditioning' if you want, but even more so, its just bascially a respnse to a stimulus.

and there are no 'cognitive' portions of the nervous system in T's. Cognition is something uniquely human. Well, at the same time, WHO REALLY KNOWS IF T'S DREAM, but based on what we know of brains from ants to humans, cognition is something uniquely human.

in order for "cognition" to happen, there has to be a higher cerebral cortex, which T's don't have. It also comes down to a matter of space... thats why human brains are SO convoluted  -- you can fit 3X the amount of brain in our heads that way!!

 See, what you have to remember is that most of the "non-cognitive animals" (everything non-human) have devoted 100% of their brains to aligning with their instincts. The cerebral cortex is something unique to humans.

 If you ever study neurology you'll learn all of this. It's actually quite interesting (opinion  of course  )...

but in order to have ANY form of memory ('primitive' or not) there needs to be a central relay station... humans are the only 'things' on this planet that has evolved the cerebral cortex to do that... thats why we can speak and dream and hate and want and wish and jones and beg and have opinions and be moved by colours and smells... consequently, it also allows us to form and remember memories.

its like saying as long as you keep giving a machine power, it will work, but as soon as you stop applying power, the machine stops working...

is it a working machine? well, yes as long as the initial stimuli is applied. But once that stimuli is pulled away, the machine just sits there.. So if there's no stimulus, is it a working machine? It all depends on your viewpoint i suppose...

wow,  thats confusing even to me. 

in liberal and conservative neurological - terms, i wouldn't classify that as 'primitive memory'. I would classify that as simple response. As long as you keep hitting me, i'll keep getting mad, you know  as soon as you stop, we're cool. I have no reason to get mad as long as you refrain from hitting me, you know 

 i hope this clears up alot.

 i've only spent 5 years studying this, and am in no-way a Neuro- guru.. well not yet 

Also sean, uh, i think thats just the T getting mighty pissed at having to be moved from its burrow.. How angry would you be if you took some time to make yourself a nice little comfortable place to hang out (your room, lets say) and something just came out of no-where and and ruined it and took you out -- you'd be mighty angry..
The only difference is, the neural pathways in the T brain don't do the same things as in humans.. its only response would be ANGER, NOW! in 8 years, i don't think it would remember. It would still get angry if it happened again, or something, and the difference is, you, as a human, could form a memory,and possibly try to build your room of steel next time (man, i'm really striking out with examples today huh?). My brain is not working too well now, so i hope that kind of answers your question. I'll come back tonite and redo it  but it works for now! =D

What it comes down to is a simple maxim: You need to have the right tools to do the job. If you don't have a brain wired with the memory-software, no matter what you do, you can't get a memory-response. Make better sense?

Next time im in the lab (a month?), I'll swing by the entomology dept at the U. They have about 45,000 specimens ( i believe) and i will dig through trying to find any research about this! T's don't need memory. Ameoba's don't need memory. Scorps don't need memory. They need instinct and food and sex. They dont need to idealise about corvettes vs. porches. They don't need to realise the negativity about the KKK. They don't need to worry about politics and hatred. They don't need to retain that information. All the information they need, they are pretty much born with. Its called instinct, and, as we evolve, we lost most instinct. We still do, however, retain that basic, limbic, mammilian part of our brain that focuses on the 3 S's and 1 F - Satisfaction, Sex, S*itting and Food  That's literally how its written in the neurology books  We do have that in common  Man i could keep going, but im stopping

thats a real interesting question you asked, man!
peace
dave


----------



## Code Monkey (May 24, 2003)

Dave, you can have your silly ideas that we're the only things that dream or have memory, I'll watch my dog clearly dream, and even Ts and cockroaches have memory. And dolphins, not even remotely close to primates, learn that a reflection in a mirror is them even faster than humans, which is indicative that they have an even more advanced abstract concept of self than even us.

So, either your neurology prof was a quack, or you weren't paying attention. Either way, you can type even more than me in defense of "humans are unique" or you can realise what most of the biology profs I have worked with know: humans aren't all that special by a long shot.


----------



## Sean (May 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RugbyDave _
> *I did say that alot of people note that animals can be conditioned, but as for T's, the conditioning won't stay. I'm going to say this, that I don't think you could 'train' a T to walk onto a button to get a 'treat' of a cricket, as we can do with pigeons and mice (and, i just saw in the lab that they're doing this with FROGS!!! thats pretty cool!)
> 
> EVERYTHING will repsond to stimuli, but that DOESN'T translate to memory. Hell, if you push a saftey pin into any animal, it will respond. With humans, its pain and hitting and screaming, and with an ant, its something as simple as noiciceptors firing off with some basic response (is it pain? Im not sure, im not an entomologist studying pain reception).. and even with amoebas, they will undulate away. ANY time ANY stimulus is given, a response is shown. The responses, however, do differ.
> ...


Well thanks i asked it cuz i was intrested in knowing how the T brain works, and reading your posts makes me more and more intrested in this topic


----------



## RugbyDave (May 24, 2003)

whoa, no need to get defensive buddy 

thats the whole point -- everyone's got opinions.. thats why i peppered my posts with ("personally" and "i think") -- man, calm down!

dreaming isn't something i'm getting into. we're talking memory.
and memory needs higher brain functions.. T's don't have that.. my opinion (actually, my opinion on a fact).. 

We're not talking about dogs or monkeys, my friend. I was responding to a * T* question.

and humans ARE unique in speech and ideals and opinions and cognition and memory. 

and regardless of how you feel, im down with your opinion. Thats what makes the world so colourfull man -- everyone's different opinions. I love hearing other people's ideas and opinions -- it helps you to learn about other views, man....

and unfortunately ( no need to get personal bud)i have to say this, but i highly doubt that the neuro professors at Mass General/ Boston University or the Mayo clinic are quacks.if so, we're all screwed  And i don't think they accept people into split MD/PhD programs who don't pay attention... at least i hope not... =D

no need to call my ideas silly.  I never said that about yours. I just (continually) posted what I THINK and MY OPINIONS. hell, thats why i kept typing that in my post. i too, think dogs dream! But thats not what were focusing on... =D ;P  those are all separate things from MEMORY...

and abstract self ideas don't equal MEMORY -- thats what this post is all about! In fact,  i agree with you on most of what you said, but not T memory   We're talking MEMORY.. i never said anything else about dogs not dreaming or dolphins not having high brain functions...

no need to be so defensive. we all have different views. And, again, to clarify, i wasn't talking about dogs and monkeys.. just T's... and god, i'd hate to see what youd say to my thoughts on religion! Geez 

and if theres one thing i thought i made painfully clear its that i never humans are SPECIAL.. i said they were unique in certain capacities like speech and idealisng and racism and hatred -- go back and recheck it out and youre still not sure.. if you care.. anyways 

later
dave


----------



## RugbyDave (May 24, 2003)

hey sean

 glad the post interested you! When you really study this instead of just wondering this and making your own conjectures, its actually really interesting what T's and insects are capable of!!!

glad this made you interested buddy!
 I'll be looking down at the entomology dept soon to find some cool research!

later
dave


----------



## belewfripp (May 24, 2003)

Just a couple of things I wanted to mention...

First, when you think about it, most memories are caused by a stimulus, whether it is smelling a certain smell which then causes you to remember something that happened and was somehow associated with it or the actual conscious act of trying to recall a memory.  In the latter case, you are deliberately 'telling' your brain "brain, recreate what happened at x time when I was y years old" and, hopefully, it does.


Second, how do WE remember our way home?  We become familiarised with the way things look when going in certain sequences of direction from one place to another.  Sure, we may say "ok, if I take I-75 to Henley St, and then make a left...etc" but this doesn't translate into 'knowing' until we've seen it out for ourselves anymore than reading about getting bit by a Pokie vs. actually experiencing it.  I know where I live based on visually recognising the way, and if you totally rearranged the street layout, surrounding buildings, added intersections here and there and removed some others, I wouldn't know my way back home (barring the use of a GPS unit) any better than a tarantula without a dragline.


It has also been shown that Salticids (jumping spiders) are capable of retaining the memory of what happened on a failed jump after prey and correcting for mistakes they made when they go to try it again.  I also find it difficult to believe that spiders with such great eyesight wouldn't visually recall other details.  Now, they have less 'storage space' to work with, so will they remember that jump months from now?  don't know for sure, but odds are no.  It has also been shown, I think in a species of flower spider, that spiders can and do show prey preferences, and some will pass on certain items, while others will chow right down.  All of us have seen this with our tarantulas, I'm sure.  I have Ts of the same species, some of whom will eat dead prey, others who won't; I have an H. gigas who happily munches hissing cockroaches while my other will have absolutely nothing to do with them.  Tarantulas may be 'basic' animals by certain standards, but they aren't automatons.  Much of their lives is in the domain of instinct, but they have a limited degree of free expression as well.  


If this weren't the case, then how come some days you can introduce your hand for a handling session to a particular spider and have no problem but the next day do the exact same thing and get a face full of urticating hair?  By the same token though, they can be "trained" in a limited sense.  Raise up a goliath birdeater from a baby and handle it regularly.  I have done this, and have to say, although I have no scientific information to back me up on what is going on in its little tarantula brain, the fact is it's used to me.  And I believe that were someone other than me to go and pick her up, she wouldn't buy it.  I don't know if people have different smells that more chemoreceptive animals like Ts can distinguish between or what, and I'm not trying to make a case for higher brain functions in invertebrates -- she almost certainly doesn't know what I am, or understand my motivation for picking her up, but there is a degree of recognition there.  


Another anecdote, this time an A. seemanni that once, when tapped on the butt, did a 180 and was a fraction of a second from driving her fangs into my finger, pedipalps around my finger and everything and Oops, the spider stops, pauses, then backs up and resumes normal sitting posture.  Not only did the spider recognise I was not prey but more significantly it came to the conclusion that I'm not a threat, either.  So, to the spider, what was I?  Probably 'that big smelly thing that pokes around in here once a week'.


I'll also add that although I agree with the basic gist of what CM is saying, in my experience it takes longer than a week for the 'conditioned memory' to wear off in some cases.  The blondi I mentioned above I sometimes now don't handle for 2-3 weeks.  You know, I'm going to test something.  I have a lot of fat-bellied, NW tarantulas with slow metabolisms, and I've conditioned my Ts to know that when an object hurtles in from above, its food.  I'm going to deprive some of them of food for a month and then see if they still react the same.  Not being conducted under strict scientific procedures, but I'll continue to feed some of the same species as a crude control group and see what happens.


If nothing else, this is an interesting topic to discuss.

Adrian


----------



## RugbyDave (May 24, 2003)

i agree adrian, but you must remember, at any rate, in any case, Jumping is instinct to a jumping spider.. not memory..!!!

and i agree with you too!!! how come one day you can get tagged by a blondi, and the next day it won't even move a hair while resting on my hand? There is no memory of my hand being an agitator.. its just like somedays youre in the mood and your not in the mood..

i feel like we're getting the concept of MEMORY confused with conditioning, responses and instinct..

and they're not.

and if you don't know, there's always room to learn, right? Here's the facts: memory is a full brain process translated by the cerebral cortex..

and the fact is, T's dont have cerebral cortexes. 

 I agree that to an extant T's can be "trained", but let's try some experiments then!!!! Seriously! The higher up you go, the more "trained" an animal can become, since they can account for more and more information retention thats not basic instinct ("BAD DOG, DON"T CHEW THE RUG") -- eventually, if the habits are correct, and the dog "learns", it knows not to chew the rug.

but, we've all seen it when we come home sometimes.
And even if that dog NEVER chews a rug again, its because its learned the punishment.. .now, yes, we can constitute that as memory, but its more a learned response after a conditioned stimuli.

 again, i think we're getting the concept of MEMORY confused! No, i know we are 

and you can't have memories untill you actually have the information to store one. To use your example, if you dont mind adrian, you can't have a memory of you being tagged by a pokie untill it happens. Thats very true. But thats all it is! And once it happens, you can store that information and remember it.

T's don't, in my opinion (and most of taught neurology).

let's try some experiments then! The thing is, you'll never EVER know if a T truly has memory retention!!

 And thats what people need to realise.. i'm not all rooted in science -- a good piece of advice was given to me a while back, and i've kept it up front ever since:

 you have to be open to your own fallability. (the general you of course)

 in other words, we could have it TOTALLY wrong, and we have to be open to that fact.

T's may be fully able of retaining memories,and some peoples "god" may not exist, and all that crap, you know..

 so it stands that we know one thing on this case:
we'll never truly know =D

It is my opinion, only based on my versions of facts, experiments, and common sense (anatomy and physiology) that they can't retain memories. If so, i think they'd be alot different animals. 

these animals are just reacting to stimuli and its different EACH time.. 

and to prove my point, guys:

show me that I remember myfirst house..  You can't find ANY discernable way to prove that something can have a memory..

now, we all know most humans are capable of memories..

its interesting when you can't form memories. 2 of my patients have Short-Term  Memory Loss.. In other words, they can't form any new memories...

and its amazing how hard that can affect your life! They can remember everything pretty much up to the accident, but every day we go in, its "hi doctor, Im XXX, have we met"

kind of off topic, but crazy nonetheless...

we're working in the memory lab to figure out if they actually really can form new memories and its just some darwinian cover-up response..

and whether you want to believe it or not, we are DEF. bounded by our anatomy and physiology.

we can't fly.. we can't drink water.. we cant mash up crickets with our pedipalpds..

 we just dont have the tools we need! The brain is a very unknown organ, and its very misunderstood in the mainstream...

once you start to actually learn the beauty of the brain, you become more and more amazed at how astounding our lives really are. Hell you don't even have to study them to realise that! i knew that before i even started the doctorate studies!!!

And adrian, as for 'food hurtling from above" -- it comes down to instinct, yet again.. they sense its food. Try this -- to show its the food they'll respond with (by starting to eat it), drop a chopstick in the tank from above, and let me know how long it takes to finish eating it.. They will eat food when its there.. that's not much of an experiment.. You wouldnt be testing anything that we don't already know. What we have to realise is there is NO definitive way to prove that something can remember!

we're all together on that I know =D! Cos if you can prove that, then i'd love to see your proofs on religion and how wrong a lot of people are =D.. and i'd be interested in your piece of property on the lake....... (just joshing you of course!) 

imjust giving you a hard time, dont worry. And again, for the record, i don't ever remember saying T's were simple or automatons, nor did i ever insinuate it! Remember, we're all on this board for our love of these creatures!

whether we want to idealise it or not, alot of this IS rooted in science fact. I'd love to be able to think in 3 dimensions, but we cant. Id love to see in 4 dimensions, but i can't! There's just SOME basic level of science fact that governs neurology! We are bounded by our anatomies sometimes.. and the physiology of our bodies... theres just some things we need bigger brains to do (speech and cognition for example)...

Its been a large science for many many many years, and we've been studying brains for a long time.. Please give us that  We may not even know 2% of anything, but its 2% more than we knew 20 years ago, right?

and T's can't for memories =D ;P

but thats what opinions are for, right. 


no anger, no defensiveness, just (and i agree with adrian) a really interesting topic! I love seeing everyone's opinions!!! Its so damn cool! Off to listen to more mitch hedberg!

as it stands, i love these guys whether they can retain memories or not  

man, we've got some mighty fine ideas on this board! (i'm serious!!)

later
dave!


----------



## jesses (May 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Code Monkey _
> *
> 
> It's probably a primitive form of memory formed by the strengthening of particular nerve pathways in their cognitive portions of their nervous system. So long as whatever it is they're remembering keeps up frequently, the pathway remains reinforced and is remembered. But as soon as the regular stimuli stops, the pathways lose their boosting and return to a normal state. *


Huh? I forgot how to do Calculus 5 minutes after the final exam was over, so who you calling primitive? ;P


----------



## belewfripp (May 25, 2003)

*i agree adrian, but you must remember, at any rate, in any case, Jumping is instinct to a jumping spider.. not memory..!!![\B]

The studies in question were not meant to demonstrate that salticids remember how to jump, but rather that they remember specifically the details of the exact jump that they just made that resulted in not catching what they had hoped to catch.  That is not instinct, that is memory.


and i agree with you too!!! how come one day you can get tagged by a blondi, and the next day it won't even move a hair while resting on my hand? There is no memory of my hand being an agitator.. its just like somedays youre in the mood and your not in the mood..

Or, alternatively, it remembers that yesterday nothing of actual consequence came of being bugged by you, so today it does nothing.  Also, alternatively, the memory of the prior occurrence is not the foremost aspect of such an encounter every time it happens, i.e. it recognises you as probably not being a threat but it isn't in the mood to be bugged, so it reacts defensively to get you to go away.

i feel like we're getting the concept of MEMORY confused with conditioning, responses and instinct..

Part of why you feel that way is likely due to the fact that my post did not deal exclusively with memory, but I would like to add that, as I said before, every time you recollect something, it is a stimulus-response situation, whether an external factor causes you to remember or you deliberately make the attempt to do so.

and they're not.

and if you don't know, there's always room to learn, right? Here's the facts: memory is a full brain process translated by the cerebral cortex..

and the fact is, T's dont have cerebral cortexes. 

Neither do salticids, but if they can remember, and they can, then it seems that memory is not exclusively the domain of the cerebral cortex, or rather, that in humans, this may be the linchpin of our ability to remember, and remember well, but in other animals, perhaps the memory powers are more deficient, but exist due to reasons beyond the existence, or lack, of a cerebral cortex.  I would extimate that at least 10 times the effort and time has been put into understanding the human brain than any other type of brain or neural ganglion mass in other animals.  We may be rather sure of how memory works for us, but without the same level of study and knowledge on other brains it seems unwise to draw a conclusion about another creatures capabilities based on a simple 'we have it, they don't' distinction.


I agree that to an extant T's can be "trained", but let's try some experiments then!!!! Seriously! The higher up you go, the more "trained" an animal can become, since they can account for more and more information retention thats not basic instinct ("BAD DOG, DON"T CHEW THE RUG") -- eventually, if the habits are correct, and the dog "learns", it knows not to chew the rug.

I think that's a false dichotomy.  As I noted in my post, knowing where you live and how to get there, as well as driving a car, riding a bike, baking a souffle, whatever, these, according to your definition, are not things we remember, and are not true learning, they are simply the result of repetition and conditioning.  Can a tarantula recall a particular day in its life from five years ago or something?  Honestly I don't know, but I doubt it.  That is something people can do that spiders probably can't.  But as stated before, so much of memory is stimulus-response and conditioning, even in people.  For me, if you remember something, I don't care how, that's memory.  And especially, if a creature is responding to something in a particular way through the utilisation of previously acquired information, that is using memory.

again, i think we're getting the concept of MEMORY confused! No, i know we are 

...But thats all it is! And once it happens, you can store that information and remember it.

T's don't, in my opinion (and most of taught neurology).

Then why do spiders that I purchase, that do not have an exaggerated feeding response, or who at first seem confused when a cricket comes hurtling at it at high velocity, eventually begin pouncing on the hurled crickets before they even hit the ground?  You can call it conditioning if you want, but look at the example you give above.  I get bit by a pokie, I store the information, I remember it.  This is exactly what is going on in the example I just used - something happens, they store the information, and not only do they remember it, they use that memory as applied to actual behavior in a situation, just like I would in, say, staying the hell away from pokies.

Admittedly, for a tarantula this takes repetition but Ts also admittedly have less complicated brains than people and less storage space.  Reinforcement does not preclude it from being memory.  Tarantulas, perhaps, cannot recall during their daily business that high-speed projectiles are food, but when it happens, it triggers the memory, the same way hearing a particular piece of music might do for us.  We can call it up anytime (although honestly, if we can, why don't we more often?  Answer, because memories are usually things we bring up for a purpose, just like a T killing or recognising prey; whether it be for the purpose of entertaining someone with a humorous story, or reminding ourselves of some sad moment, or simply trying to remember our password to this board, we use memories, just like all the examples you have given of "conditioning")  but just because an animal can't or doesn't seem to be able to call memories up at will doesn't mean that when it is stimulated to remember that it is no longer memory.  

  so it stands that we know one thing on this case:
we'll never truly know =D

Here's the thing though; while I realise this is your acknowledgement that the world is uncertain and you could be wrong, which I respect and appreciate, because I acknowledge the same about where I'm coming from, the fact is that if we're going to take the whole 'we'll never really know' point-of-view, we might as well stop talking now, because it invalidates the worth of the discussion.  The fact that we are discussing this requires that we've already made the assumption that we can discover if something is true or not.  If we hadn't, we wouldn't be talking about it.


and whether you want to believe it or not, we are DEF. bounded by our anatomy and physiology.

Not a point I was making, if you think that's where I'm going with this, you are incorrect.

we can't fly.. we can't drink water.. we cant mash up crickets with our pedipalpds..

 we just dont have the tools we need! The brain is a very unknown organ, and its very misunderstood in the mainstream...

Well, we can drink water, but as for mashing up food, no we don't have pedipalps, but we can mash up crickets if we want to, with our hands.  The exact tools aren't there, but something analogous is, it may not do the job quite as well, and have limitations that the other animals' tool doesn't, but it still does it.  You ignore the possibility of analogues; how do you know that other animals don't have a similar part of their neural network that allows memory, but more limited in scope and without all the other bells and whistles that our cerebral cortex offers?


 And adrian, as for 'food hurtling from above" -- it comes down to instinct, yet again.. they sense its food. Try this -- to show its the food they'll respond with (by starting to eat it), drop a chopstick in the tank from above, and let me know how long it takes to finish eating it.. They will eat food when its there.. that's not much of an experiment.. You wouldnt be testing anything that we don't already know.


Then why did they not always do this?  You're absolutely right that they are sensing it is food, but they are not sensing it directly, in effect smelling the 'cricket-ness' about it, they detect that it is food because it is being chucked in from above, a situation or condition that they remember having been food from prior occurrences.  It's like if someone sends me a package, and I open it up, and inside is a box full of candy, my reaction is going to be to eat it, right, because it's candy?  But if this happens 4 or 5 more times, and the package always has a certain character to it, pretty soon I'm responding to the package as food, and immediately opening it up to get at the candy.  It's like a giveaway, something that alerts you to the nature of something before you are able to actually assess the nature of that something and react to its properties directly.

 What we have to realise is there is NO definitive way to prove that something can remember!

No, but we can fail to disprove it.


we're all together on that I know =D! Cos if you can prove that, then i'd love to see your proofs on religion and how wrong a lot of people are =D.. and i'd be interested in your piece of property on the lake....... (just joshing you of course!)

Good, I have a bridge, too, its a package deal.

Its been a large science for many many many years, and we've been studying brains for a long time.. Please give us that  We may not even know 2% of anything, but its 2% more than we knew 20 years ago, right?

Absolutely, brain study has come a long way, and I'm not meaning to suggest that legions of professors and textbooks are fools.  I do mean to suggest that what you take as axiomatic may not be so.

and T's can't for memories =D ;P

Maybe not HUMAN memories, but then human beings are not the codex for the definition of the universe.  Just because something experiences a different KIND of something or has less of it than people have, does not make it any less so.


no anger, no defensiveness

Agreed.

later
dave! 


Adrian*


----------



## RugbyDave (May 25, 2003)

belewfripp wrote: "Well, we can drink water, but as for mashing up food, no we don't have pedipalps, but we can mash up crickets if we want to, with our hands."  (thats my horrible attempt at trying to quote you, sorry man  )

 exactly!!!! and thats the point of higher brain function -- you take a T's chelicerae away, and i doubt it will use what it has around it (cork bark, water bowls, half hides etc) to be able to find a way to eat.

 we, with our brains, can use tools to our advantage...
i don't think T's can. But thats my opinion and i respect yours my friend 

if you happen to ever get a T that has no chelicerae, leave food in there, and see what it can use (like you said, we can use our hands to mash the crickets up) to eat - i highly doubt you'll come back in to find it mashing up crickets with its other legs and fiding some way of getting nourishment. Thats the thing, i think many animals can learn to use other things for their needs (as in your example), but not in the way that, humans and dolphins and monkeys and anteaters, and whatever can.. its just, to me, a factor of evolution and brain size (and sheer Body Anatomy! You can't fly if you don't have wings! You can't pick up a tool if you dont have hand or legs or curling digits! So why would the brain and body evolve to that if you don't have the capacity.. thats like saying "yes, i can fly, i just don't have the wings yet" ;P).. we just have the capcity to learn.. this is why Ts dont talk and dont cognate and don't have political ralleys. again, in my opinion!

animals (including us) are simply limited by our own anatomy and physiology.. thats why some plants can "drink" salt water and the rest die in salt water...

you think they have memories ( i think you do?) and i don't.
 plain and simple! No big deal  i always love learning other people's views!

 its very interesting to see other people's views.. you can actually see deeper into their views and opinions.. very interesting to me to actually try and SEE where my fellow board members are coming from.

and i hate to say, but you CAN just learn something once and retain it..it's not just repetition and leraning.. its called a photographic memory.. its a phenomenon that happens to many people....while some people don't have very good memories, some people do! Some people are whizzes at math and some are amazing artists (i've seen some on this board!) I disagree with you in the fact that memory stems from repetition. I think a truer statement would be that it CAN stem from repetition, but it doesnt have to.  Maybe with some people, but when i learn a language, i dont have to repeat the words, they just stick.. I wouldn't classify that as conditioning... thats the reason i dont spend hours studying.. it just sticks in there.


what you need to realise, no matter what we think, is we just don't know enough about memory and the memory-repsonse to say any definitive answer about who can remember what. If you can really prove that, buddy,i'd say write it down and submit it to the science annuals -- you'll be getting QUITE a bit of money if you have some proof! (Seriously, im not joshing you..some of our greatest theorems and proofs have come from lay people!).

To me, its just very difficult to compare humans to T's -- we're alike in MANY ways, but we're just a different species.. its great with all speculation but when it comes down to it, in my opinion, we're just too different. But i'm not closed to the fact that they can remember and dream.... people, at the end of the day, who really knows, right? 

T brains evolved for certain things and not others, much like their bodies... if you think they have higher brain functions, that's an interesting point of view, and i can't say they dont. I can only tell you my opinion! 

we in the neurological sciences just don't know enough to have a definitive answer yet, and again, if you think you do, please write somewhere! Or email me with a larger version of it, i'd love to read it (no sarcasm at ALL!)..seriously!

but as it stands, i fully see your point of view adrian, in all honesty! It's very interesting to me. I love hearing other peoples p.o.v's. I've learned that many people don't want to hear other peoples views.. i think thats stupid, personally. That's part of the fun of life.. people are too stuffy and too stuck on their own views. Personally, i find it quite sad when people are too stuck in their own ideas to be able to see someone else's point of view, but i suppose thats also part of what makes the world go round.

good call, man! 

 so, who else thinks what??!! This is great =D

peace
dave


----------



## RugbyDave (May 25, 2003)

its amazing and great and wonderful that there's 2 of us talking, but i wish other people would join in,no matter what your opinions are..

maybe some people on this board will shoot you down for you opinions, but i dont think i (or adrian or sean) will -- chime in!!!! 

by the way, nice one jeff -- i'll let it slide cos you're a fellow rugger ;P

peace
dave


----------



## belewfripp (May 25, 2003)

Just a couple quick things because it's bedtime --

First, my point with the hands/palps was to point out that though we haven't got palps, we do have something similar, i.e. hands.  Tarantulas don't have a cerebral cortex, that doesn't mean they don't have something capable of doing a less-advanced imitation of its memory functions.

Also, although a T w/out fangs can't take apart its food, if you gut the cricket yourself, some tarantulas will realise they can suck the juices out.  Not as good as being able to digest everything and drink that, but there are people who have sustained Ts that did not have fangs in this manner.  I also believe I've read where a T that had somehow busted up its fangs used what was left to do a slash-n-gash job on the crickets and suck out what liquid was in the cricket, but I'm not 100% certain.

And, as Stan Schultz has mentioned, a tarantula he had with no usable legs or palps adapted its chelicerae as 'walking' organs and dragged itself around by its fangs.  So, deprived of various body parts, Ts do have quite the ability to adapt.

Lastly, I did not mean to suggest that memories are only formed through repetition, only that they can be. Many human memories are formed from a one-time experience, as are the short-term memories exhibited by salticids.  My point was that memory induced by repetition is no less memory than that formed by a one-time experience, and that, indeed, memory induced by stimulus is not really so uncommon, so to designate such a thing in a spider as not really being memory seems incorrect.

I think the main deal here lies not in a confusion of memory, but rather in the definition.  I see memory as any recollection, especially a recollection that is used for some purpose (as, again, most human memories are) even if that merely means behaving in a certain way simply because last time something similar happened that behavior proved to be a good one.

Adrian


----------



## RugbyDave (May 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by belewfripp _
> *J
> 
> And, as Stan Schultz has mentioned, a tarantula he had with no usable legs or palps adapted its chelicerae as 'walking' organs and dragged itself around by its fangs.  So, deprived of various body parts, Ts do have quite the ability to adapt.
> *


i think you misunderstod what i said....

any animal will use what it has ON its body to get nutrition, of course... I was saying that the higher brain functions allow us to use EXTERNAL items to help us out (monkeys with sticks to get ants, dolphins with hoops, humans with tools)...

i agree, there is a wrong confusion of the definition of memory, like i said before. Not all memories are used for a purpose, which is what i love about being human... nothing like remembering that beautiful sunset or your first kiss... you know what i mean  Whats the point of it? no reason... you could say "oh its for your personal well being" but is it? it could be argued 'no'....

and also, the cerebral cortex = memory isnt the same as cerebral cortex = using our hands... And to me, yes it does mean FULLY that they can't do the same things we can.. i.e - thats why they cant speak. even if they had larynxes, they still need the BRAIN SOFTWARE/FXN to be able to speak. If if they could tell us they can remember, the need the BRAIN SOFTWARE/FXN to be able to remember. Even if they had the capacity to hold ralleys and learn to be racist and have opinions, they'd still need the tools to be able to translate. They just don't have higher brain functions. And by higher brain functions i don't mean that we're HIGHER up on the ladder, its just a term.. it means things like speech, memory, coginition, etc...

hey, we can all fly, right... we just don't have the tools  to do it yet.
I  can prove god doesn't (or does) exist, i just can't show you 

why did we not evolve flippers? well we probably don't need them so often in the world we live in. Why did ants not evolve tails? well, they don't find the use in them.. why did tarantulas not evolve bigger brains? well, the probably had no use for them..

but this brings us to the question of self-similarity -- why do we even exist in the first place?  but thats a WHOOOOLE other topic on a totally different board 

im off to bed too!
peace
dave


----------



## RugbyDave (May 25, 2003)

by the way adrian,
 patti smith and husker du freaking rock... husker du reign from the wonderful state of minnesota too, which makes them double cool..

but dancing barefoot? waves (#s)...??? astounding.

and for some nice T content, i can't remember who posted this pic -- any help anyone? 

later,
 dave


----------



## belewfripp (May 25, 2003)

Real quick-like,

why do we remember things like a beautiful sunset?  Because it gives us pleasure to do so.  We enjoyed it the first time around, remembering it allows us to re-live that pleasure to some extent.

I also should clarify what I meant by a confusion of the definition of memory.  You and I are defining it differently, that's all.  Your definition seems to involve some form of visualising the memory in one's head.  Mine does not, and simply involves remembering, even if there is no conscious awareness.

You are right about using items outside one's own body, but Ts do that, too.  I have had spiders use water dishes as walls, roofs and supports in burrow-building, and there is the by-now infamous 'my spider keeps fillings its water dish with dirt'.  A lot of the latter is likely accident, but I feel fairly confident that at least some of it is deliberate, perhaps for humidity purposes.  It is also worth noting that by using things like water dishes as burrow parts, a t is using something it has no prior experience with in a similar way that it might use a natural object, like maybe a rock or something.  It isn't a rock, but the T detects it has properties that will accomplish the same goal.  Or perhaps the substrate I give is not sturdy enough on its own, so the T uses something else to lend support?  It seems within the realm of possibility, then, that Ts are capable of adapting to unfamiliar things and utilising items outside of their own instinct (no tarantula has evolved with the knowledge and use of plastic as a burrow construct, and wild tarantulas don't have water sources in or near their burrows that they can leech from using soil) to accomplish a simple goal that is in line with what they might normally do with items from nature that are unavailable in captivity, or to accomplish an environment that they might obtain in other ways in the wild.


And no, Ts can't do the exact same things we can, that's why they are tarantulas and we are people, and there are many things we can do that Ts can't do at all, and vice-versa.  But to define memory as only human memory is, I think, erroneous.  They don't remember like we do, but they do remember.


Personally I prefer Husker du to Patti smith but both are excellent.

And apparently I lied about going to bed.

Adrian


----------



## belewfripp (May 25, 2003)

Oh and that's me holding my goliath.  Funny, I remember posting a link, but not the photo itself.

Adrian


----------



## Phillip (May 25, 2003)

*You want other peoples opinions...*

Ok then here's mine.    Do Ts have memory?  Well that would depend on your definition of memory but I have to lean more towards reaction and conditioning than towards memory. Why do I feel this way? Simple.. If Ts could actually remember and even reason on say even the smallest level then why do they strike at a stream of water going into the water dish. For that matter when the 1st strike gets them nothing why do they continue to blindly try and grab it? I'll tell you why because they are reacting and not thinking. These animals are for the most part blind and pretty much react to any movement around them. They are also very primitive compared to jumping spiders as mentioned before so comparing the 2 is kind of pointless. The fact that you can handle even the most defensive Ts around once you get them walking should show that they really don't think much about what's going on around them or they would still want to bite you after being picked up. I also don't buy into the memory thing due to the fact that just because a T rears up at you one day does not in any way mean that it will do the same tomorrow therefore I do not feel that they remember you upsetting them. Same is true when you restrain one by the ceph ( a move they do not care for ) if there was memory present then wouldn't they try to avoid it or even get angry the next time you did it 5 minutes after the fact?   

I feel that folks try to hard to put human like thinking capacity into their pets and especially Ts . You have to keep in mind that compared to most animals these guys are way down on the evolution chart and they are pretty basic creatures. An intersting test for you to see just how easily their limited brain function shuts down is this. Take a pair of large tweezers and getnly come under the ceph without touching the legs. Once there gently lift the spider off of the ground so that the only contact it has with anything is the ceph resting on the open tweezers. Once done they will spread their legs and freeze. Doesn't matter what species either as I have done it with all of mine and had the same results every time. Whay do they do this? More likely than not because their very basic brain does not know how to cope with the totalloy new situation and there simply is no programmed reaction for it as it never happens to them. The really wild thing about it is that once they're lifted you can hold them that way for as long as you want they kind of shut down like a croc on its back does.   My theory in short is that they are purely reactionary creatures and that there is little more going on in their minds than eat, reproduce, and don't get eaten. That is why once you understand what makes them feel threatened it becomes easy to handle and manipulate even the worst of them.

Phil


----------



## Code Monkey (May 25, 2003)

Dave, I think the problem with this discussion is you are defining memory according to some ridiculously narrow parameters. Memory by my book is any ability to form an association between stimulus and response. Trying to say that isn't memory and just conditioning is like trying to say that sky blue isn't *blue*. It is memory - just not your neuro prof's definition *in relation* to human beings (and you wonder why that definition seems impossible to reconcile with Ts).

No one in this thread has tried to put forth the argument that Ts remember full sensory experience of their last meal, still you basically keep saying the same things over and over again regarding the necessity of a higher cortex for such a memory system to put down anyone who says Ts do remember things when I would suggest that it is you who needs to use that higher cortex of yours a bit more in thinking about why you keep typing pages of material to argue something that is largely unrelated to whether Ts have a system for memory.

Conditioning is a form of memory and if you don't agree with that, don't bother replying again because it's not defensiveness, it's just being tired with people with just enough education to "be dangerous".


----------



## RugbyDave (May 25, 2003)

interesting... i'll go this far: conditioning can be thought of as a very crude form of memory..

Thats EXACTLY why i started my first response with (and go backand check if you dont remember  ) *"IT DEPENDS ON WHAT DEFINITION OF MEMORY YOU'RE USING"*... i thought that set the tone.. i guess it got lost in the other words..

and i can to reply, geez. _everyone's_ got "just enough education" -- when it comes down to it, i dont think its books that give education my friend.. there's many other forms of that. This isn't one of those "well i've had X years of school, so i know it all", i mean come on -- no matter HOW much school youve had, thats not where real learning takes place(in my opinion). Thats why i said things like *"i've only spent 5 years studying this, and am in no-way a Neuro- guru.. well not yet * and *"this is just my opinion, but* and *"personally, i believe they don't*... i never said "well check it,  Im king sh*t of brain mountain, so bow before me, and listen up kids"... nor did i say anything of the KIND.. hell even adrian gave me that.... 

everyone's got different views, and if you don't want someone to reply if they don't agree, than that's way out of my league! 

takes all kinds, i suppose

i'll say this much, whether you mean it or not, your post still seems defensive or angry or something... like if we were talking face to face, i'd be like "lets take a break, and finish this tommorow -- you don't sound like your in a good place to have a discussion now" -- which is cool.. we all get like that sometime. hell, i got like that a couple days ago on here... Just being honest.

its a problem with communication -- sometimes what you inted for people to understand is PAINFULLY different from what they imply.. so, just letting you know. its a problem on both ends, of course.

CM -- what you HAVE to understand is, we all have different views on these things.. I def. see yours and adrians (they are slightly different though)! I do understand ... I am not replying anymore since, i've said my piece to adrian, and i see your point.. sometimes, you have to lay down arms and agree to disagree. Good thing to learn. i gotcha. i hear you.. loud and clear. Very interesting view point, and something i will be thinking about, actually... because, at the end of the day, no matter what words you use, what education you dont (or do) have, what real-world experience you have (or don't  ), we just don't know enough yet.. I'm still waiting for some feedback on that point... cos thats the REAL part that brings us all together there =D

by the way, CM -- i've never met another actual libertarian.. i thought i was the only registered LIB. I've really never ever met one... we got the same views somewhere, i see!  nice 


peace
dave


----------



## kellygirl (May 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RugbyDave _
> *
> nd i can to reply, geez. everyone's got "just enough education" -- when it comes down to it, i dont think its books that give education my friend.. there's many other forms of that. This isn't one of those "well i've had X years of school, so i know it all", i mean come on -- no matter HOW much school youve had, thats not where real learning takes place(in my opinion). Thats why i said things like "i've only spent 5 years studying this, and am in no-way a Neuro- guru.. well not yet  and "this is just my opinion, but and "personally, i believe they don't... i never said "well check it,  Im king sh*t of brain mountain, so bow before me, and listen up kids"... nor did i say anything of the KIND.. hell even adrian gave me that....  *




I think you missed what he was saying by a long shot.......

kellygirl


----------



## RugbyDave (May 25, 2003)

interesting point of view phillip...

its def. odd to see the T just go limp, or 'freeze', when their legs have no contact with the ground.. its just something that doesn't happen in nature and they just don't know what to do...

nice examples too.. i def. couldn't do that last night.

i agree with you mostly! i'd say the reason they have little going on in their minds, is because their minds have to focus on other things.. when you have a brain that small, certain things have to go ... you can't have EVERYTHING in that size.. you just can't... 


pce
dave


----------



## kellygirl (May 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RugbyDave _
> * I am not replying anymore since, i've said my piece to adrian, and i see your point..
> *



Hmm.... Dave, you make it too easy for me!!  =D 

kellygirl


----------



## RugbyDave (May 25, 2003)

haha no, what i meant to CM was... well,  because he said "If you don't agree with that then don't bother replying" -- so i said my 3 lines on that topic, then went off in a diff. direction with the rest of the reply  ..

so there you go. alright....

and that again goes with what i was saying -- sometimes, you just miss what people are saying, and sometimes what they mean comes out different...  i took it to mean "people with JUST enough education have a buttload of power" in the sense that people who pepper their thoughts from 2 semesters of summer-school accounting can sound like the best of them.. It doesn't mean, however, that theyre real accountants... just enough to stir things up and say the right lingo.. It also comes off slightly negative, personally, in my opinion, TO ME... I also think it means something along the lines of 'having just enough education' to kind of get the feel for what youre talking about but stillmissing the whole point...

I took it to mean that whole thing above.. and my response still stands? If thats not, then please explain it to me.. thats how i took it..  if its wrong, then...... I'm def. open to seeing the right definition of it =D

what it comes down to, i think we're all slightly missing what each other is saying... but it slowly coming together SINCE WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION IS  =D its fun and great to debate, but at the end of the day, we just simply don't know.. so all the words and knowledge and book experience and lab experience and real world experience is great and wonderful and amazing and blah blah blah.. but what we need to understand is, we just don't know... I do like the debates though! 

for all this higher brain stuff we evolved with, well, it certainly comes with a price, doesn't it 

what can you do kelly..sometimes you get someones point and sometimes you miss it... so if i did take it wrongly, after reading this, please exaplain it. i have no problem with  learning, and saying "damn, i dont know"! 


peace
dave


----------



## Code Monkey (May 25, 2003)

Dave, I'm not trying to be ugly or anything, I just have a confrontational nature 

One of the first things you have to do when trying to answer a question is tailor the definitions/parameters to the subject matter. This thread started off discussing the central nervous system capabilities of an invertebrate and you from the start argued your point from the point of view of higher vertebrate systems, and moreso, from the bias of human neurobiology.

It's a foregone conclusion that if you argue your side from that standpoint, no, Ts don't have a memory (I realise you tried to qualify your answers in that context, my beef was with taking that context in the first place).

As an analogy to see why I got a bit uppity, let's say someone asks if Ts have a circulatory system and you start in saying, "no, they don't have a circulatory system - they lack a chambered heart and an organised blood vessel system." That's a similarly incorrect standpoint because they do have a heart, and a mixture of open and closed haemolymph pathways for the purpose of transporting substances and oxygen.

You talk about the perils of anthopomorphising, but then you went and stepped in the pit full of pungee sticks of antropocentrism. Intellect, cognitive abilities, memory, concept of self, emotional capacity, etc. are not discrete entities. They are a gradient that exist in varying quantities throughout the animal kingdom. At the most basal level we get the pure stimulus-response of bacteria or protozoa, and at the other extreme you have fully sentient organisms capable of sitting around and arguing abstract concepts in relation to other organisms, but it's not just a sudden astronomical leap from stimulus-response to full sentience. The animal kingdom is an amazing mosaic of different and often wildly different approaches to cognitive processing of their environment.

As food for thought I leave you with this account from Darrin Vernier:





> _Posted by Darrin Vernier in the ATS_enthusiast list:_*
> Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 03:08:18 -0700
> From: "gphx" <gphx@email.msn.com>
> Subject: Re: Amazing observation in the wild/thinking tarantulas
> ...


----------



## RugbyDave (May 25, 2003)

thats a mighty interesting post man! I feel like i've read that before.

and its cool, i don't mind confrontation in this sense, as long as people aren't SO uppity that they can't even see what the other person is saying..

but that isn't so.

I've gone ahead and emailed everyone i know in the entomology-neuro field to try to get a more subjective answer... in other words to see what the current research is showing... not that it means anything, but i'm generally interested in what the current facts are youknow!

i'm also calling Dr.Breene right now to see if he knows anyone that can point me in the right direction!

 I will, of course, post all UNCENSORED emails i get back  I'm not shifty!

and when all is said and done, i just don't think they have the neuronal capacity to have memory in clear terms?

can they be conditioned? yes, like i stated.

just my opinion. 

and,i really am interested in other peoples opinions. I hate having a debate when people are just too focused on their own points to listen to the other people. I really am going to be pondering this in my own brain...

because, CM, Sean, KG, Adrian, Phillip, whoever, we just really don't know. 

theres a difference between the circulatory system and the neural system --  we can't really prove whats what.

 And hell, i even go THIS far anduse my OWN side -- say we CAN prove that T's are opening their ion channels and using potassium in the same way (lets just say), i'll be honest (as i've said before), who knows if thats even memory.. could just be some evolutionary thing.

i'm not trying to qualify anything! Im more trying to show where i'm coming from in my opinions! I don't think anyone reading this would say "oh that dave is really trying to prove the fact that T's cant remember" --  i think theres a subtle difference in what im doing -- i'm trying to show MY BELIEFS on T memory.. in other words, my responses are more focused more on WHY i don't believe it... you know what im saying? I keep saying who knows if they can remember or not, in ANY sense.. my whole thing is showing where im coming from in my BELIEFS..

make better sense? sometimes you can't get the words out right,and it takes a good (well, semi-good) night of sleep to work it all out!

i find most libertarians are confrontational.. with our beliefs, we have to be ready at to pounce at any moment.. I hate to say it, but if you find it differently, i'd love to live in your town!! Cos where i live, its always "oh what, so youre, like, a hippy or something? why do you want all that crap legalised. just for fun???" -- and what they don't understand is, its the bigger picture we're worried about, right? =D 

you're good in my book CM 

peace
again, what a good thread
Dave


----------



## kellygirl (May 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by belewfripp _
> *  I also find it difficult to believe that spiders with such great eyesight wouldn't visually recall other details.  *


How much do jumping spiders actually see?  If I remember correctly tarantulas have horrible eyesight...

kellygirl


----------



## kellygirl (May 25, 2003)

*Re: You want other peoples opinions...*



> _Originally posted by Phillip _
> *If Ts could actually remember and even reason on say even the smallest level then why do they strike at a stream of water going into the water dish. For that matter when the 1st strike gets them nothing why do they continue to blindly try and grab it? I'll tell you why because they are reacting and not thinking. These animals are for the most part blind and pretty much react to any movement around them. *


Funny, I've had completely different experiences with my spiders.  Mine often strike the first time but never strike a second time at the water--during a single watering, that is.  Perhaps in the wild, tarantulas don't come across food as often when in their burrows so if the prospect of something edible is there, they will strike.  Maybe it's programmed into their system to strike quickly in case the opportunity doesn't come again in the near future.

Sometimes my little ones will strike at a paintbrush as I am trying to urge a cricket into the enclosure, they won't do it again during that same feeding.  They are much more cautious before a second strike.  I see this as AT LEAST short term memory because they realize that the paintbrush is not food (or in the earlier example of water, that it is not the food they were looking for either) and do not strike at it again.

Tarantulas, if I remember correctly, do not have good eyesight at all.  They only see shapes and shadows.  Well then how would they know NOT to strike at water before it hits their web?  It's not a large object indicating a possible predator.  It's quick and often sprays into droplets so it could be easily be mistaken for small insects.  Once the water hits their webbing, they should be able to quickly tell whether said object is prey, predator, or neither via their more heightened sense of touch.

I really don't know enough about tarantulas to determine whether or not they possess or utilize the capacity for memory--and I don't have any factual knowledge beyond what I myself have seen.  In regards to the idea of tarantulas using tools, I do know that several of my tarantulas use soil in their webs--for what purpose, I do not know.  Decoration?  Insulation?  Protection?  Stabilization?  But certain species do this consistently.  I don't think this has anything to do with memory and I don't know if it is instinct or creativity on the part of the individual.

kellygirl


----------



## Code Monkey (May 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kellygirl _
> *How much do jumping spiders actually see?*


Jumping spiders have very good visual accuity. A male jumper will react to a video of another male as though it was a competitor their eyesight is so good.


----------



## RugbyDave (May 25, 2003)

Alright

 I just gone done having a great conversation with Dr.Robert Breene, and I've just emailed Fred Punzo (the "big-man" in this area of the science) and George Uetz.

So far, we're talking conditioned responses. Dr.Breene was talking about a P.formosa who conditioned herself to being held... However, these T's still attacked and reared up. 

He also said that there hasn't been too much research done in this area, but there HAS been 2 or 3 books written on the subject, which im going to check out right now. He also said the University of Minnesota is a great place to check inter-library journals (our library has about 4.5 million books and journals). I'll be going over there to peruse around and see what i can nose up.

I should be getting emails back from the arachnologist/entomologists pretty soon. 
i'll post exact emails when i get them.

 My first book to check out today:
"the biology of spiders" with a focus on neuro-bio in Ts.

apaprently there's not been too much done in this field of research, and i'm looking for a field to go into with a degree in entomology,so maybe I could be one of the first Arachno-neuro-biologists =D (we must fail to disprove...  )

at any rate, nothing yet. But i'm hobbling up to the university to go nose around and see what i can dig up!

what it comes down to is that apparently there's been a bit of pavlovian work done with T's, but nothing really in memory, he said. 

doctoral thesis, here i come 

peace
hope everyones having a nice sunday,
 dave


----------



## kellygirl (May 25, 2003)

Dang it Dave, you are just one of those people who pushes my buttons.  I missed this thread for awhile but I just finished reading it all...  How many freakin times do you have to bring up "racism" as an example of higher functioning cognition?  To me, if racism is 'human nature' then all those other creatures have a one-up on us.  Racism is a 180 degree regression and irrational misuse of the small percentage of our brain capacity that we actually do use.

But, as usual, you contradict yourself several times--probably making sure you don't offend anyone so you cover your tracks--saying first racism is a "human nature" and "higher brain function" and then, oh wait!  You cover your tracks by saying the KKK is negative.  Good one, then nobody can say you didn't say racism was bad, right?  Then, hang on, you say that humans have the unique capacity for racism--but wait, we're not special.  Let me be clear on that.  And THEN you say that humans can "learn to be racist"--it's a higher brain function.  But, of course, that doesn't make us "higher on the ladder."

Good job, cover those tracks so no one can have anything against you. And if that doesn't work, you could always chalk it up to diversity of opinion or people misunderstanding your intentions/words.  It's all about semantics, right?  Toss in a few side comments about being "doctor school" for X amount of years, contrasted with a few but-we-can-never-REALLY-knows and you've made for a great argument for your egocentrism on top of all that.

If there is one thing I've learned on this site it's that you can't base your argument on your beliefs or opinions.  Good ol Code Monkey taught me that lesson the hard way a few times before I caught on.    I know you like hearing other people's opinions, even if they are differing--you continue to tell us that in nearly every post you make--but hey, I'm just a "lay" person, no where near the future neurological guru you are--so you can toss this post out with an "oh well, we're all different, that's what makes this world so great, am I right?!"  Now let's get back to talking about those sexy bugs of ours!   

kellygirl




> _Originally posted by RugbyDave _
> *Without these bundles of myelinated axons and specialized nerves, none of our "human" natures would exist (speech, memory, cognition, racism, ideals and opinions and thoughts.....). This is a known fact. Chalk it up to pure evolution, a god, or whatever, but either way its fact
> .....
> remember, we gave up instinct to get higher brain functions. T's retain instinct, but don't get the same brain as us
> *





> _Originally posted by RugbyDave _
> *They don't need to realise the negativity about the KKK.
> *





> _Originally posted by RugbyDave _
> *
> and if theres one thing i thought i made painfully clear its that i never humans are SPECIAL.. i said they were unique in certain capacities like speech and idealisng and racism and hatred  *





> _Originally posted by RugbyDave _
> * Even if they had the capacity to hold ralleys and learn to be racist and have opinions, they'd still need the tools to be able to translate. They just don't have higher brain functions. And by higher brain functions i don't mean that we're HIGHER up on the ladder, its just a term.. it means things like speech, memory, coginition, etc...
> *





> _Originally posted by RugbyDave _
> *
> thats the whole point -- everyone's got opinions.. thats why i peppered my posts with ("personally" and "i think") -- man, calm down!
> *


----------



## RugbyDave (May 25, 2003)

i have some Ts that attack the water sometimes and some that don't do it at all.... I can't wait to get back the info from the researchers!! 

jumping spiders have the best sight of all spiders, because they have eyes that focus on the peripheral and eyes that focus on the main... also, the muscle to move each eye are very well defined, more so than any other species.

it is also said that they can react to a few different colours

And, as would seem so, their brains differ in that way than other spiders...

like i said, you'd be hard pressed to find a T using a tool to get a cricket out of a funny place..maybe its legs,maybe its pedipalp, but i highly doubt you'd find it turning over its water dish to trap the cricket.. 

though i have a feeling someone may write in "well,i've seen my T turning the half bark over to crush the cricket i think"  =D

the thing is, again, we simply don't know enough at this point to do anything more than debate and make conjectures... its an interesting thing to think about though! 

Our brains and theirs are different in a couple ways, but they are alot alike. They use the SAME mechanism to move their muscles and start complex muscle movements. They use the same mechanisms as humans do while eating and foraging for food. But thats about it. Their brains just dont have the neural capacity to do so. 

If someone thinks differently, i'd tell them to go into research with it! They could make some big waves in the T world and start a whole new sub-science of entomology.

because right now, as it stands, what little we've done with the neural strutcure of T's, they just don't have the capacity to retain information that's not relevant to them. In neurology, if you don't have the space to keep it and its not important to you, why remember it..

they don't need to take up space in their brains with extraneous info, neither do we.. there is limited space in smaller brains. They need to focus on eating, breeding, defecating, reproduction and homeostasis. They don't need to focus on remembering what it was like in the eggsac, of how their breeding mother "smelled" -- they just didnt evolve with a cerebral cortex that does that. 

And, i agree with you kg, i don't know if its memory or just something else (re: soil in the web). Some of mine do that to. I think again, thats just them doing what they'd do in the wild -- build a burrow that is "comfortable" for them to live in. Im using "comfort" very loosely. you know what i mean,right? Its like when i see my T's cover their water dish with dirt, over and over. Is it to lower the humidity? Is it by accident? They're smart, i def know that. But do the retain information? To me, NO, because they just dont have the brain structure to do that!

peace
dave


----------



## RugbyDave (May 25, 2003)

i def don't push buttons on purpose,kg...its always crazy to realisehow much words have power..


Kelly, i learned something early on.. its a good thing to know: You can take anyting out of context and make it apply to what your saying.. You can make ANYTHING out to say what you want it to...

And i think you didnt get it: im using racism, *along with love and hate and idealism* as examples higher brain functions. -- keep it in its context... do we find racism in nature? To me, no.

and yes, i view the KKK as a bad part of higher brain functions. No track-covering there?

you have to realise that higher-brain-functions can be bad -- rape , abuse, racism, ... to me, those are NEGATIVE side effects of POSTIVE higher brain functions -- look closer...

although i did read a very interesting research paper on rape in the animal kingdom.. dunno if its trueor not..

and i have to keep repeating things liek "MY OPINION" and "PERSONALLY" because people tend to rip into words and not even view the context..

my, what im learning more and more is that people tend to be SO focused on their own view points that they don't even care to learn or listen. Its always interesting to me to see how people react (including myself)... 

come down from up there, and join me down here KG.. read my words, don't pick out context -- its very clear to see that you do that just by your responses...

but tomato, tomahto, right? hardly...

at the end of the day, I don't care who "likes"me or who "doesn't" -- you view it as covering my tracks, and you'rewelcome to view it like that. All i really care about is answering questions. i don't care if people agree with me! I don't care if people enjoy my posts! I talk to the people I talk to and that's fine with me. 

if people rip my posts apart, thats great! Hell, i could probably use some criticism. Its sad to me though, because i don't think alot of people can. Sometimes you gotta look in the mirror, no matter how great you think you are, or how much you think you have this world figured out, and say "do i really???"

it doesnt bother me if people view me as an @ss or a egotistical? I know you guys don't really know me, you just know my words (which do speak alot about us, but they really aren't encapsulating who we are). I just really want to help people who are new to this whole deal.

If, when all is said and done, people dislike me for my words, well it just speaks miles about them. I don't care. I sleep well. I have my friends. No matter what you say to respond or what you think, i'm telling you the truth. You either go with what you think in your head, or listen to me telling you how it is: It doesnt matter what people think about me, kelly  It really really doesn't. I'll stillpost answers and little T-quips i find on the TV and pictures... ya know!

we all come from different places my friend.

your posts are always welcomed at any rate. 
peace
dave


----------



## RugbyDave (May 25, 2003)

by the way,kelly, did you email rhys about your blondi, or are you just going to keep it? I emailed him also...

peace
dave


----------



## kellygirl (May 25, 2003)

Exactly the post I expected... didn't you say you were leaving?

kellygirl


----------



## belewfripp (May 25, 2003)

*Re: You want other peoples opinions...*



> _Originally posted by Phillip _
> *
> 
> I feel that folks try to hard to put human like thinking capacity into their pets and especially Ts . You have to keep in mind that compared to most animals these guys are way down on the evolution chart and they are pretty basic creatures.....My theory in short is that they are purely reactionary creatures and that there is little more going on in their minds than eat, reproduce, and don't get eaten. That is why once you understand what makes them feel threatened it becomes easy to handle and manipulate even the worst of them.
> ...



I actually agree with a lot of that, I guess my view is that much of human memory is, when reduced to its esential parts, reaction and stimulus-response.  We have more of a control of it because we can voluntarily choose to remember something, and so the stimulus is coming from an internal source rather than something external, but that doesn't make the remembrances of Ts any less remembrances.  They aren't consciously aware of it, and it serves a very basic purpose, i.e. adjustment to certain situations involving food, shelter, etc, but I still think it qualifies as memory.

As far as striking the water goes, while this has happened sometimes with Ts I own, a far more common response is that some of the water splashes up and the T goes scrambling away, or even, where there is no visible contact, the T reacts in a startled manner.  I see the 'ack, water, get it off, get it away' response a lot more often than the 'grab the water' behavior.  Both, however, are reactions, but one involves a correct apprehension of what is going on, while the other doesn't.

also note the A. seemanni I noted earlier in this thread.  It rounded on me like I was food then, apparently, new information came in via its chemoreceptive setae that indicated that, no, this is not food.  Do some Ts blindly strike water repeatedly without seeming to understand what is going on?  Yes.  But there are times where Ts react to a stimulus in one way only to suddenly 'change their mind' based on new information coming in, often a prior correction of the original response.  I'm not going to argue that tarantulas are self-aware, capable of forming thoughts and opinions, or capable of emotion.  But I don't think that basic memory and learning are out of the question.

I also want to note the reactions my h. lividum, among others, often display toward being poked by something i'm holding.  At first there is biting and threats toward the item the T is being poked with (pencil, piece of chopstick, etc) but then, if it keeps up, the spider seems to become 'aware' that there is more than meets the eye to the little scenario, and ignores the item, instead scrambling up it toward ME.  This is entirely supposition, but is it really that far-fetched to believe that, in watching the motion of this object holding another object, the T rejects the initial aggression toward the held object and decides the real source of the problem is the hand holding it?

Adrian


----------



## RugbyDave (May 25, 2003)

geez, yes i was, but it happens. I'm making food now, then i'm leaving. I think adrian put it best last nite with: *"And apparently I lied about going to bed."*

Well, _did_ you email him about your T? I think he'd be the best one to talk with about that stuff... I think T-death is one of his focuses...

Just cos we're snippy on the board doesn't mean anything...calm down...and also, if you really want to figure stuff out and try to really talk, lets do it over PM. I'd be more than happy to talk with you there about non-T stuff... however, i don't know if the feeling is mutual...take a deep breath first, and then PM me if you want, man!

back to food and then off to do some T-memory-research searching. 

later
dave


----------



## RugbyDave (May 25, 2003)

adrian, no i don't think its far fetched for it to realise that the hand is the antagonizer.. if it strikes at the chopstick and gets no response, i think it would move on to the hand.. and if still got no response, it would strike at whatever else was moving!!!


and, i don't think basic learning is out of the question...

but, it all depends on your definition of memory, right?

 I've got some Ts that strike water EACH time, and some that dont... Just differences  of the "ATTACK" threshold of the neuron.

each neuron will *only* fire when it reaches a certain threshold, you know. Maybe for some T's, water pouring isn't one, but sneezing accidently is.. Ive got some T's that had to be dug out of aburrow and they don't show any aggression, meanwhile my lividum seems real angry 

thats why this area of research is so rich -- we don't really know too much about it. I'm not covering my tracks or anything, i'm stating the simple truth!

why do some memories come flooding back with for no reason? Thats what we were studying when this year concluded.. no  pleasure,no pain, just all of a sudden youreback in 4th grade, waiting for your mom to pick you up from school, and you can actually remember some shirt youre wearing..

thats one memory phenomenon that we know nothing about, which is pretty cool. there's no reason for it, and as quick as it comes, it leaves...randomly firing neurons? subconscious-escape-mechanism? who knows... thought you might like to know that.

ok, now i'm really off to finish food and hobble down to the university 

later
dave


----------



## belewfripp (May 25, 2003)

I'm not someone who believes that there is necessarily a reason for everything -- at least, not a reason that makes any kind of sense -- so I will admit a memory could occur where there is no direct instigation, but even if a neuron is firing randomly, that's what is causing it to fire -- randomness.


As an aside, I think I've written more in this thread in the last day than I've posted in probably the prior 3 months.  My initial reply had to actually be trimmed because the board won't let you post over 10000 characters in a post.


Adrian


----------



## RugbyDave (May 25, 2003)

Now, back to real subject at hand: 
I'm at the university now (ah the joys of living 3 blocks from the U! )

 I've found 3 articles talking about the neuro-bio of spiders, but nothing on T's fully, andnothing on memory fully. I have found one chapter talking about possibly testing memory-reponses in spiders (including T's)...

will post more as i find it
peace
dave


----------



## kellygirl (May 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Code Monkey _
> *Jumping spiders have very good visual accuity. A male jumper will react to a video of another male as though it was a competitor their eyesight is so good. *


Hmm.... so does anyone know why there is such a huge disparity between vision capabilities of various spiders?

kellygirl


----------



## belewfripp (May 25, 2003)

Well, Jumping spiders make really precise jumps and adjust for all sorts of different factors, so great eyesight is key.  Consider also the kinds of Ts that usually get considered for better eyeight than the norm - arboreals like Poecilotheria and Avicularia.  I haven't seen any research or data on the eyesight of the latter two, so that is conjecture, but it seems like living in the trees or doing a lot of timed leaping drives superior vision in some spiders.

Adrian


----------



## kellygirl (May 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by belewfripp _
> *Well, Jumping spiders make really precise jumps and adjust for all sorts of different factors, so great eyesight is key.  Consider also the kinds of Ts that usually get considered for better eyeight than the norm - arboreals like Poecilotheria and Avicularia.  I haven't seen any research or data on the eyesight of the latter two, so that is conjecture, but it seems like living in the trees or doing a lot of timed leaping drives superior vision in some spiders.
> 
> Adrian *


Hm, that makes sense.  Arboreals need more accuracy to perform the jumps so perhaps certain species have adapted a stronger sense of sight in order to do so?  Contrastingly, the terrestrials don't need to do these jumps and have little need for heightened sense of sight.  And burrowers, spending most of their time underground (ie. in the dark) and so would have less need for good vision and more need for sensitivity of touch.  What other creatures have naturally poor eyesight?  Moles?  Bats?  Deep sea animals?  Cave-dwellers?

At both of the school visits I have done with my tarantulas, children have said something about tarantulas having lots of eyes.  When I explain to them that tarantulas use their sense of touch more than their sense of sight, they always ask why (gotta love kids!).  And I don't have an answer for them.  I have no idea why tarantulas have so many eyes but they see so little.

kellygirl


----------



## RugbyDave (May 25, 2003)

back from the U, and i've only found 3 books and a couple articles (eutz, fonzo and some other PhD students)... But i did email a couple of the big guys here at the U, and i'm hopefully dropping by the lab in a couple weeks to pore through the info there... should be interesting

most of the stuff is on inter-library loan though. I put in my name to get the info next, so i'll be bringing back stuff as soon as I get it...

as for sight, it really makes you wonder if the eyes on the T's are slowly on their way out the door, so to speak.

jumping spiders, however, use their eyes in amazing ways. Have you ever seen that video of the retina movement of salticidae? they're always moving around focusing and sharpening their vision.

later!
dave


----------



## RugbyDave (May 25, 2003)

getting away from some mighty off topic stuff, i found this.. not really anything to do with memory, but something to do with spider learning.. but there is still nothing about spider memory or more so, TARANTULA memory, and as we know T brains are different enough...
-----
"Spiders Have Discriminating Taste
By Larry O'Hanlon, Discovery News

 specimen: A Lynx Spider  


June 6 — Here's one more spidey sense for Peter Parker: a more discriminating palette. 

It turns out that spiders can learn to prefer the taste of one food over another. A Florida study of newly hatched lynx spiders has shown that if started on a particular kind of grub, the spiders later prefer it even when offered a wider menu. 

That means spider behaviors aren't all just instinct, said arachnologist Fred Punzo of the University of Tampa in Florida. Punzo made the culinary discovery about lynx spider hatchlings in his lab and his results will appear in the June 28 issue of the journal Behavioural Processes.

"Insects and spiders can learn," says Punzo. In fact, he says, they have the same basic neurological hardware as mammals, only simpler and easier to study. 
Punzo revealed the lynx spider food preferences by first raising his own community of the common spider in his lab. After emerging from their egg sacs, three groups of 50 lynx spiderlings were fed nymphs, or juvenile forms, of three different cricket species that they would encounter in the wild. 

Each group only ate one species of cricket for their first week of life. 

Later, Punzo placed individual spiders, now adults, in a plastic arena where they were presented with savory crickets from all species at once. The spiders chose their childhood cricket food twice as often as those they had eaten later in life, said Punzo. 

The result is surprising because spiders and insects traditionally have been thought to have pre-set, "hardwired" behaviors, like computer programs, that are set for life and can't be changed, said Punzo. 

But if that were true, Punzo's spiderlings would not have been "imprinted" with a food preference. They would have had no preference at all. 

"The results of this study are interesting from a point of view of behavioral sciences since they obviously represent the first demonstration of food imprinting in a spider," said arachnologist Martin Nyffeler of the University of Bern in Switzerland. 

But besides just showing that spiders are a bit smarter and more flexible than previously thought, Punzo's work has implications for biomedical research, he said. Because their neurology is proving to be more like mammals, spiders and other insects could be as useful as mammals in neurological research. 

Only spiders can be easier to raise and work with then rats and mice, Nyffeler said."
---

 getting closer 

peace
dave


----------



## Phillip (May 25, 2003)

*actually...*

That isn't really getting any closer to the T question since you are using info on a new spider versus Ts which are far more primitive. Same as using a jumping spider in the arguement it doesn't hold water since you are comparing apples to oranges.

Phil


----------



## Vys (May 25, 2003)

I'm sorry if this has nothing to do with memory, and if it has nothing to do with tarantulas, and if people have discussed it before, but when 'smartness' and 'spiders'  are mentioned I have to quote something about Portias:

> We may be uncomfortable with the idea of spider intelligence. After
> all, with a brain no bigger than a pinhead, a spider like Portia is
> supposed to follow rigid, simple behavior patterns. There's no much
> room in there for thinking. But from its deadly skill at mimicry to its
> elaborate attack strategies, Portia is one of the most behaviorally
> complex predators in the animal kingdom."


----------



## RugbyDave (May 25, 2003)

*we are getting closer*

it is getting closer, since im looking in better and better places.. actually, from that journal, i got info on an article on "Neuro-Biology of Spiders" (including Ts) ...


*to quote,also: "i found this.. not really anything to do with memory, but something to do with spider learning.. but there is still nothing about spider memory or more so, TARANTULA memory, and as we know T brains are different enough...*

don't worry, i'm on the hunt.. 

and its true, i don't think anyone would argue with the fact that T's have highly complex behavious 

look at what they did with salticidae and its jumping skill-- there was a study done with salticidae and different level platforms.. with food on the highest platform..

and those little buggers made it up to the top!

its pretty interesting.. 

but, as any person with common sense will say, and i think i'm quoting shultz here (could be Dr.Breene, though) "all bets are off when you study them in captivity"....

so much left to learn about these guys!  i'm def getting close and closer... if youre looking for hidden gold, and you start to find a trail of diamonds and such, i'd def say you were getting closer.. hell, youre closer than you were before  At least i know that there are articles studying the brain of spiders.. now we need to focus that onto Memory of Ts =D

pce
dave


----------



## belewfripp (May 25, 2003)

*Re: actually...*



> _Originally posted by Phillip _
> *That isn't really getting any closer to the T question since you are using info on a new spider versus Ts which are far more primitive. Same as using a jumping spider in the arguement it doesn't hold water since you are comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Phil *



The impression I've always gotten is that the designation of tarantulas and other mygalamorphs as primitive in relation to other spiders has more to do with the lack of trachae and the up-and-down movement of the chelicerae.  If nothing else, tarantula neurology, and that of spiders in general, is so little understood that I would be surprised if the often-made designation of mygales as primitive was being made based on neurological factors.  


That of course doesn't mean that it might not be true that tarantulas have more primitive neurology than lynx spiders, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence yet that this is necessarily so.  Also, the major reason why I brought up the jumping spiders was not to say 'salticids can, therefore so can tarantulas' but rather, that if X animal with primitive neurology can remember, or see well, or develop prey preferences, then it is not reasonable to exclude these behaviors from other primitive animals based simply on the fact that they are primitive.  Simultaneously, as you point out, it is also erroneous to suggest that because two spiders are both primitive lifeforms, and one can develop a prey preference or form limited memories, that this is true of the other as well.  Actual study will need to be made on tarantulas themselves if we really want to find out the answers.


But I think it is interesting to see behaviors like these manifsting in animals most people would have dismissed as being capable of such things.


Adrian


----------



## Kenny (May 25, 2003)

*Just one answer!!!*

D A V E is back!!..


----------



## invadermike (May 25, 2003)

Everything you said Dave brought me back into my psychology class, we studied the brain for about a month, I learn a little, and we learned about animals memorys too, I actually understood everything you said. Seems like a really awesome field of study. I want to go to college to be a pyschologist possibly, It would be awesome. Anyway,  i think everything Dave said is right about all the memory stuff, but then again, We're not T's so we can never really know. But.... Yeah you know....
Mike


----------



## RugbyDave (May 25, 2003)

yes he is back 

 and mike, i took one invert behaviour class, and its SO much different than animal behaviour/psych classes.. 

invert psych was all science, very cool. vert/mammal psych was too theoretical for me.... I think alot of people should take one (if you can find one near you).. i mean, we get alot of info on here, and the net, and from other people, but you really do learn ALOT in an invert behaviour class.

you can really learn alot!

peace
dave


----------



## skadiwolf (May 26, 2003)

i find this thread absolutely fascinating.  

hooray for whoever began it and for those who continued it with such enthusiasm.

dreams and memory are something that will probably be debated forever...especially the first one.

also...everyone, note this:

even facts are theories that just haven't been disproven yet.  we don't know ANYTHING for sure.

regardless of what college professors/evil geniuses/whoever is teaching, we do NOT fully understand the human brain, much less animal brains.

i think anything said in regards to such elusive concepts can only be stated conjecture and nothing more.

when we can give an exact answer to exactly why certain things work as they do in the human mind, great...that means we'll understand the HUMAN brain and mind.

however, we already know that even between the sexes memory is different in humans as is brain function.

i think to expand our ideas to animal/invert/insect brains/minds is simple folly.

however, i do think it makes an engrossing discussion topic.


----------



## RugbyDave (May 26, 2003)

i heartily agree. its fun to debate with people who are focused on the debate. 

 and good use of the word 'conjecture' -- its a good word. i like it too! 

in recent news, i got 2 emails back from some of the atshq guys in regs to it. And, lo and behold, as was stated many times, there's not too too much research into this area, and theres no real answers yet, but i'm still waiting for other T guys (stan and dr.punzo and dr.uetz) to email back.. at least they can point me us in the right direction to help find some of the real research in this area.

after having some really good conversations with Rhys and Dr.Breene, this actually may be something i really start to delve into..

then i won't have to dig through annuals at the University all sunday afternoon.. i'll have it in my house 

And a good piece of advice - you can never learn too much. you're never at the height of knowledge, and there's always room to learn some more, you know! This topic is very fascinating!


peace
dave


----------



## Arachnopuppy (May 26, 2003)

*Re: You want other peoples opinions...*



> _Originally posted by Phillip _
> *Ok then here's mine.    Do Ts have memory?  Well that would depend on your definition of memory but I have to lean more towards reaction and conditioning than towards memory. Why do I feel this way? Simple.. If Ts could actually remember and even reason on say even the smallest level then why do they strike at a stream of water going into the water dish. For that matter when the 1st strike gets them nothing why do they continue to blindly try and grab it? I'll tell you why because they are reacting and not thinking. These animals are for the most part blind and pretty much react to any movement around them. *


Have you ever thought that the fact that they are blind and that their sense of touch isn't the same as ours not allow them to actually know what they are striking at?  How long do you think an animal would survive if it gives up the first time everytime it misses?


----------



## Alias (May 26, 2003)

very interesting thread ...


----------



## atmosphere (May 26, 2003)

I don't mean to offend anyone but this is the facts. Science hasn't even come close to understanding the human brain and, what its full potintal is. E.S.P ect. Then they wanna say they have figured out the animals minds so easily.They say dogs don't see 3d only 2D they cant watch t.v. and see it . My dog can see t.V. and they say cats are color blind I don't believe that either.Many cats reconize preditor or warning colors so do dogs.I think We will never truly figure out the brain. You can never make a statement about a animal as fact until youve been one I don't see that happening.:}


----------



## Code Monkey (May 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by atmosphere _
> *and they say cats are color blind I don't believe that either*


Actually, they don't say this. Cat's see in a "predominant" color scheme. A field will apear all "green" to them and only a very large object or a moving object will stand out.

I also don't know where you get the idea that someone says dogs only see in 2D as I've NEVER heard that either. Dogs have stereoscopic vision with forward facing eyes precisely for 3D vision for hunting.

And ESP, I don't rule it out, but saying that we don't understand the mind *because* of ESP is, well, ignorant at best.

We actually can understand very quantitatively a lot about animal brains (in fact I'd go so far to say we can understand a lot more about animal brains because of what we're allowed to do in experimentation versus human beings).

Now, them IS facts, as opposed to half-truth ramblings.


----------



## Code Monkey (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: You want other peoples opinions...*



> _Originally posted by lam _
> *Have you ever thought that the fact that they are blind and that their sense of touch isn't the same as ours not allow them to actually know what they are striking at?  How long do you think an animal would survive if it gives up the first time everytime it misses? *


Actually, I suspect it's something much simpler at work: a T's learning/condition/memory system is probably dependent upon weighting the results of a given action or stimuli. A T will learn that the click of the critter keeper lid means a bug is going to fall out of the sky because there is a positive reward for recognising and reacting to this stimulus. Darrin's Ts learned to bang their dishes because there was a positve reward for the action.

Conversely, striking at the vibration of the water does not have any negative outcome. The T strikes and doesn't get any food, so what? The T strikes and "misses" plenty in the real world - like you said, how long would an animal survive that gave up. 

To say that this example is evidence of them not remembering would be to give them credit for being able to conceptualise that the vibration they just felt and reacted to was not a grasshopper landing in front of them but rather something pouring water from above into the container there in front of them. It's that sort of reasoning that Ts lack, and that is why they keep striking at the water, not that they don't remember it was water.


----------



## atmosphere (May 26, 2003)

Your thinking like a closed minded scientist again!  I bet you also say we only use 10% of are brains too. Just because none of your instrument detect anything happening in the other 90%. But you know alot about it right Its not ignorant its being open minded and useing common sence !:}


----------



## Code Monkey (May 26, 2003)

No, the 10% bit is another purely ignorant load of crap. Scientists are well aware we use 100% of our brains, it's the rest of you that think there's something unknown going on.


----------



## RugbyDave (May 26, 2003)

Oh man, CM do i agree like sin....

i'm sick of always having people ask me about that 10% crap.. like, because dan rather said it, it must be right, you know?....

its like the whole thing with "daddy long legs being the most poisonous spider, but theire fangs are too small" -- there's SO much lore that people take as  fact.. not anyone's fault, since we've all fallen prey to it,

 but we do USE 100% of our brains.. there's not 1 piece of our brains we DON'T use.

what that whole 10% deal stemmed from is this:

everything you do with you brain simply boils down to connections between nerves (synapes). Now, the only thing that can permeate the synapes is a neurotransmitter, which is basically a chemical messenger that 'tells' the neuron to either fire or not fire.. (inhibatory / excitory). As the initial response speeds down many, many neurons, things are firing on and off, thresholds are reached (or not) and different chemicals are released.. this is called an Action Potential (Its basically what it sounds like, the Potential for an Action in the nerve to occur).

the nerve,now, understands 2 things: Fire or don't fire. There's no gradient, or no half-firing.. thats it. Potassium goes in to the nerve, Sodium comes out of the nerve, the nerve is depolarized and -- this is what propagates the initial signal ("move eyes left"), thus, we have a neuron "firing" .

Now, EVERYTHING (learning, muscle movement, digestion, sexual thoughts, hitting someone, etc) uses this system. However the problem is thus:

we only make connections between these synapses when we do something new ("this is a Ball, baby.. can you say _BALL_?").. so each time you learn something new, untill the day you die, you will be making *new* connections between *new* nerves. Whether you know it or not, that is the simple neuronal basis for learning..

so, the here we are:
we've got millions of neurons, but not all of them are connected...
The AVERAGE human (and this was study done YEARS ago, before technology and new sciences came around) was supposedly using only 10% of all the possibly connections....

but you see, its a pointless statistic. Thats like going into a bank and saying you own 2% of everything in there...

 i mean, whats the point? Who cares? You can only know what you know and you can only learn what you can learn. Everyone has  a different capacity for knowledge and memory. Explain to me why one of my friends has to work his butt of studying for finals, and i dont open a book, meanwhile, I can't do art worth *CRAP*, and this girl i know has the hand of GOD with that stuff? Alot if it has to do with the capacity..some people will never learn math, no matter how long they study it, or try to go out in the real world and DO it.. yet you've all had that 6th grade math teacher that would say "comeon, give me any 2 numbers and i'll divide them and give you the right answer"  well maybe not all of us, but im sure alot of us had that guy/girl, right?

its just your own unique, personal capacity for knowledge.. thresholds, people.. thresholds are different for everyone. everyone has different sets of synaptical connections.. its what makes you YOU! nerves coming from my speech areas are the same as yours, but where the connect is fully different.. Some people can hear more subtle sounds than other people. Take an audiology class, its crazy. To learn actually HOW you hear.... its amazing!

and anyways alot of the studies done were shown to be pretty loose. Like some 12 year old kid in his kitchen with 2 snakes and 14 mice, trying to figure out the strength of the snakes poison.. you could make a few, possibly straight on conjectures, but in the end, not really. ("Um, snakes have wicked bad venom" -- put it in my boston accent and it comes out sounding like a moron ;P).. you know? Nothing we can really use. We know they're hot.. well some at least

whew.
another stupid fact debunked 

next we MUST work on this daddy-long legs one.

Also, alot of people used this 10% thing when referring to the amount of actual Higher Brain Function humans use... and how certain drugs allow you to use more than that and "see higher dimensions" and what not.. which is a load of crap, too.... Again, dunk this fact into what you've just learned it will make sense.. I mean, if all we can use (slash- all we've evolved to use) is 10 or 20 or 54.6% then thats that! i can't expect you guys to speak icelandic, no matter how hard you study it! You can't expect me to paint like Van Gogh, no matter how hard i study at it! You're only capable of what youre capable of.. in recent times we've learned more and more about the brain... we used to hypothosize so much more, but alot of that has been debunked recently (for instance, men usually have a brain thats 10% larger than females. For the longest time this was thought to mean that men were smarter... that was seriously a "fact" years ago.. we know now thats not really true. YES, men do have, then, a CAPACITY for learning more, but do all men do that? =D I think you'll find the answer is no  )

i'm with you, CM on the water thing in a basic sense, too...
although i can't really say why some of mine keep striking water.  Anger? Fear? Unknown?

so there we go
peace
dave


----------



## belewfripp (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: You want other peoples opinions...*



> _Originally posted by Code Monkey _
> *To say that this example is evidence of them not remembering would be to give them credit for being able to conceptualise that the vibration they just felt and reacted to was not a grasshopper landing in front of them but rather something pouring water from above into the container there in front of them. It's that sort of reasoning that Ts lack, and that is why they keep striking at the water, not that they don't remember it was water. *



Exactly.  Although they seem generally good at tracking prey through vibrations and usually don't seem to interpret my footsteps in the same way as a food item, the fact is tarantulas mistake vibrations all the time, like when a tarantula starts doing a mating drum to a human hand, or to some music. 

In my experience, they seem to really need direct contact - or some sort of hint, like the critter keeper click - to distinguish one thing from another.  They seem to detect vibration very well, but in terms of recognition they seem to be mostly tactile.  

As noted, most of my Ts, once they get the water on them, finally get it and stop attacking, but they can't determine before they even touch anything that the vibration is water and not something else, especially when they have come to associate the lid opening with food coming in.  Some of mine don't lunge for the dish at all, but I assume this is either just due to disinterest or somehow getting the sensory info from the pouring that they need to know it isn't food.  In order for a T to act 'correctly' it must receive 'correct' or accurate sensory info - something ambiguous like water pouring or being tapped on the butt by a large mammal is likely going to generate a misunderstanding.
They may react by turning about, or facing the disturbance to gather more info, but like CM says, they don't generate hypotheses based on information coming in, they react to it, and if the information is not clear enough, they may make a mistake and strike water as food instead of leave it alone or move away from it.  When an 'update' comes in, like getting the water on them, then they realise, and move away.


Also, for the Ts that keep striking the water dish long after you would have thought they'd figured it out, check out an Usumbara's reaction to being bothered.  How many times have you seen this, or another similar T, strike at webbings or the empty air, repeatedly, after being bugged?  They don't think they're catching prey, they're angry and showing it.

Adrian


----------



## Phillip (May 26, 2003)

*Perhaps I should clarify...*

When I say going after water I don't mean like an usambar on it's back striking and waiting to strike again. I mean a hungry T grabbing the stream of water again and again while the bowl is being filled the same way they will scramble to grab crickets when tossed in. And no this is not a thirst response as they act totally different then actually sinking into the bowl as it fills. 

I also don't really buy into the conditioned response of realizing food is coming whenever the top is opened. Sure the vibration gets them jump started and they look for what's going on but I doubt they realize it's always food. If this were actually the case then explain why a T than is not handled much and is usually only fed and watered when it's top is off doesn't immediately turn and try to grab your hand when you reach in to grab it or touch it on the leg. I have several Ts that I don't get out on a regular basis yet whenever I do there is no grabbing me 1st and then finding out I'm not food. The bottom line is this no one can explain much of what they do and no one is actually ever going to be able to prove one way or the other what goes on in their minds. Not being able to speak the Ts language is going to leave the ol what if factor in play despite what all the wannabe scientists and genius think they know. Fact is you can debate this one to death which seems to be the direction it's going but you will not ever for certain know the answer since you will never be able to communicate with the T.

Phil


----------



## RugbyDave (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Perhaps I should clarify...*



> _Originally posted by Phillip _
> * Fact is you can debate this one to death which seems to be the direction it's going but you will not ever for certain know the answer since you will never be able to communicate with the T.
> 
> Phil *


Well, uh, i think one thing we'll all agree on is, that  was said to death 

and its true, i dont think any of mine are "conditioned" to food? I've only ever had ONE T jump up for food, and it was a male rosea after a period of starving itself (molted to maturity, he did),

 and i do think its just startling them when the cage opens up (unless youre really good at opening the top of the cage).

And just for the record, i think they COULD be conditioned, but i dont think they all are, and i don't think that translates to memory 

and its true, i don't think memory comes into an usumbara's reation to being bothered... obviously.

 its just responding. Now, if they had the brain capacity and ability to see better, we could probably say possibly they could realise its a hand coming, store the information that "hand does not equal food" and not attack it.. 

but thats all that is -- conjecture! And since i'm KIND of edging with Phillip, and this is slightly off topic, but Ts nonetheless:

what do youse think about T's getting "used" to your voice. I mean, in humans, kinocilia in the cochlea each equate to a different 'spectrum' on the sound scale.. they only fire off and send an action potential when that certain level is heard.. so if you've got a 400 HZ sound coming through the ear, the 400 HZ kinocilia willonly fire off, thus giving you the ability to hear (its a bit more complicated than that, but in case no-ones interested, thats the BASIC neural mechanism for hearing).. whether T sound-vibration is like humans or not, there has to be some structure that takes the vibration from the sound wave in, and translates it to hearing.. i don't care if it looks nothing like the human mechanism, we can agree on that.. i mean.. the T HAS to be able to pluck things out of its evironment and translate them inside its body... you cant just say "oh thats sound vibration".. because from a far distance, with really low low sounds (do to diffraction possible? superposition?) a soundwave can just come across as a vibration (no sound with it).. but who knows how low T's can "hear" if they even can...

and T's can detect vibration, but is that to say the same vibration will cause the same hairs on the T to vibrate? Do they just react to certain vibrations? Do they react to all vibrations? Only vibrations in X spectrum? You'd think they'd react to all vibrations, but maybe not all of us say that -- who thinks what?

If there's no translating mechanism, information is lost.. If you don't have a mechanism to translate "COLD" in your hands (and some people are born without them!) you can't feel cold. If you don't have heat receptors in your hand, you can't translate HEAT sensations..

but what do you guys think? Do T's HAVE a sound-hearing translator? 

there needs to be an auditory nerve to the brain, carrying PURE SENSORY INFORMATION. thats a known fact.. do T's have something like this that we don't know about yet?

I'd like to hear your thoughts! you don't need science back-up (unless you want to of course!), i'm justmore interested in the THEORY.. I, um, think that sometimes its nice to focus on the theoretical. hell, welcome to Quantum Physics, right? 

take a breath and answer if you want. There's really not too much study done in this area too.. Well there is on spider vibration sense, but not as SOUND-VIBRATION.. remember, a sound wave carries both information AND energy...

peace
dave


----------



## belewfripp (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Perhaps I should clarify...*

*

I also don't really buy into the conditioned response of realizing food is coming whenever the top is opened. Sure the vibration gets them jump started and they look for what's going on but I doubt they realize it's always food. If this were actually the case then explain why a T than is not handled much and is usually only fed and watered when it's top is off doesn't immediately turn and try to grab your hand when you reach in to grab it or touch it on the leg. I have several Ts that I don't get out on a regular basis yet whenever I do there is no grabbing me 1st and then finding out I'm not food.*

I've had this happen more than once, and I have had G. rosea red morphs that in fact went so far as to try to test my fingers out, presumbably to discover if they might be edible.  I've also had A. geniculata and others immediately round on whatever touches them, although that is kind of par for the course for genics.  Perhaps in your situations, your spiders sensed you well enough apart from food vibrations to not make that mistake.  If nothing else, it shows that Ts aren't just reaction-machines

*The bottom line is this no one can explain much of what they do and no one is actually ever going to be able to prove one way or the other what goes on in their minds. Not being able to speak the Ts language is going to leave the ol what if factor in play despite what all the wannabe scientists and genius think they know. Fact is you can debate this one to death which seems to be the direction it's going but you will not ever for certain know the answer since you will never be able to communicate with the T.

Phil *

Of course there is no 'true' answer that can really be reached, but I think anyone who has posted in this recognised that fact before they even said anything.  And you can't discuss something very well if you don't at least pretend that you can find a real answer, or be sure that someone is definitely wrong or right or else the entire thing becomes a giant mess of qualifications 'You know, in my opinion, I think that, most likely, there is a good probability that beer tastes like bat's piss, but of course that's just my opinion and you all have equally valid opinions that I'm sure are just as possible as mine'.  At some point, people are going to say what they think is right, and that they think something else said by someone else is wrong, and here's why.  And I'd like to think everyone who has been discussing this is smart enough to know that none of us really have the 'true' answer, so that we don't have to mention that fact every 3rd line in everything we're saying.

Adrian

P.S.  My apologies if this comes off crabby, but it has been a bad morning.


----------



## RugbyDave (May 26, 2003)

doesn't come off as crabby.

its comes off as constructive.
at least to me,i don't know about other people. i tend to think some people just go right for the kill without even thinking...

but it doesn't come off as crabby at all.

(if you care, write back with your thoughts on T-sound-vibration.. im actually really interested to hear your opinions!)

peace
dave


----------



## belewfripp (May 26, 2003)

I believe that Ts can 'hear' in the sense that they have setae that sound waves cause to vibrate.  They probably don't register them the way we do, as far as music and whatnot, I think it is probably more pure vibration, akin to the way thumping bass makes a car shake than actually hearing the bass sound, but that is conjecture.  The trichobrithia, a type of 'hair' on the spider, is highly sensitive to vibrations, but again whether this translates to actual hearing, the way we might hear a piece of music (I had an H. maculata flip totally out when I played Sun Ra's Atlantis), or just vibration reception, who knows.


Adrian


----------



## skadiwolf (May 27, 2003)

you know, they thought for years that snakes couldn't hear because they lacked 'standard' hearing apparatus.  however, now they know that snakes can hear and in fact, in our range.  they can easily hear a human's voice range from 15 ft away.

i think that's fascinating.  however...it makes me wonder how they could've missed that fact all this time.

when scientists study animals is it often a common mistake for them to leap to a standard conclusion that is true in another situation instead of actually taking the time to verify it?  it certainly seems so in the case with snake hearing.  just curious.


----------

