# Depressed tarantulas in captivity



## Sharno (Oct 6, 2014)

I'm guilty of using a slightly misleading subject line.  We all know that tarantulas don't have emotions.  

Is there any awareness in them that they are in captivity?  Or sense of being confined?  In the case of a mature male with a desire to roam, is there frustration (not the right word, but you know what I mean)?

I ask because I have a jumping spider that I have been fattening up, and he/she is gorgeous - they are very, very active and roaming the entire enclosure.  I imagine it's just looking for prey, but I wonder if there's any instinctive feeling of confinement.

Just curious what people understand as far as a tarantula's awareness of being captive.


----------



## Arachnomaniac19 (Oct 6, 2014)

Well they probably "feel" a sense of "awkwardness" in captivity since they don't have their normal, seasonal temperatures and humidity but other than that I'd guess not.

 To my knowledge tarantulas can feel emotions just not on the same level as mammals. For example, when you ship a tarantula it probably gets stressed while being shipped.


----------



## xirxes (Oct 6, 2014)

I don't think we are well enough equipped to know what  tarantulas experience other than potentially types of visual stimulus. It is a possibility that they may have rudimentary emotional responses. (Unrelatedly: I believe that through over 2 decades of close observation that fish clearly display emotion.) 

As far as captive vs wild behavior, truth is that we don't have a lot of data on most species' daily activity. They are generally very reclusive.

It seems though that most species are likely not too far off base, due to the fact that hunting, staying well nourished, maximal growth, and breeding successfully has been attained with well provided for tarantulas of almost every species we have access to. These are regarded as rough metrics for fulfillment.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## gobey (Oct 6, 2014)

I try to sleep at night and I hear my MM Euathlus parvulus drumming at his enclosure walls.... He didn't do this until he came back from a breeding loan. Now he won't stop moving. I'm letting it be for now. But I may have to get a larger enclosure for him. His is just large enough to accomadate him as he's maybe only 2.5" max. But it has cork and a hide and he wandersbtge perimeter constantly a tap tap tappin. A bigger home may not stop the behavior but may make his constant circling of his snug custom tub for a mate a bit less "frustrating"?


----------



## Poec54 (Oct 6, 2014)

Sharno said:


> We all know that tarantulas don't have emotions.


And you know this how?  They certainly must feel something when basic drives are satisfied, whether food, water, security, evading a predator, etc.  And stressed & anxious when they're deprived of those.  They can't feel pain, and a sense of relief when it stops?  Set your ego aside; a lot of human emotions are driven by satisfying the same basic urges every animal has.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## HungryGhost (Oct 6, 2014)

None of my tarantulas show the slightest bit of remorse after killing crickets.

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 1


----------



## DVMT (Oct 6, 2014)

HungryGhost said:


> None of my tarantulas show the slightest bit of remorse after killing crickets.


I dont feel remorse after eating a steak...your point?

Reactions: Like 2 | Award 1


----------



## gobey (Oct 6, 2014)

HungryGhost said:


> None of my tarantulas show the slightest bit of remorse after killing crickets.


Some of mine show hesitation though.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## DVMT (Oct 6, 2014)

Poec54 said:


> And you know this how?  They certainly must feel something when basic drives are satisfied, whether food, water, security, evading a predator, etc.  And stressed & anxious when they're deprived of those.  They can't feel pain, and a sense of relief when it stops?  Set your ego aside; a lot of human emotions are driven by satisfying the same basic urges every animal has.


+1 I think relief is the greatest feeling a living thing can feel....and if they feel that...then they must feel more than we can understand.


----------



## elliotulysses (Oct 6, 2014)

Poec54 said:


> And you know this how?  They certainly must feel something when basic drives are satisfied, whether food, water, security, evading a predator, etc.  And stressed & anxious when they're deprived of those.  They can't feel pain, and a sense of relief when it stops?  Set your ego aside; a lot of human emotions are driven by satisfying the same basic urges every animal has.


Your posts are always so insightful.  I feel you're a mentor to many on here.
I also agree everything has emotions.  It's just the fact we don't have technology to read anything other than "instinct"
Biologists don't even have a way to measure reptile intelligence let alone start to comprehend emotional expression.  I'd imagine it's even more difficult for arachnids...we have too many walls to understand.  
However, these topics really interest me as I'm going to school for neuropsych.


----------



## DVMT (Oct 6, 2014)

But to answer the OP original question.... Yes....I believe on an instinctual level, they might feel confined.  This feeling could be diminished due to captive breeding, but may not ever go away.  Think about it.  Every creature is designed to roam freely and explore its environment.

---------- Post added 10-06-2014 at 08:25 PM ----------




elliotulysses said:


> Your posts are always so insightful.  I feel you're a mentor to many on here.
> I also agree everything has emotions.  It's just the fact we don't have technology to read anything other than "instinct"
> Biologists don't even have a way to measure reptile intelligence let alone start to comprehend emotional expression.  I'd imagine it's even more difficult for arachnids...we have too many walls to understand.
> However, these topics really interest me as I'm going to school for neuropsych.


Missed this post.  Bravo.  The mind amongst all creatures may be the most difficult thing we conquer the complete understanding.  We may travel through time before we break down this wall.


----------



## telepatella (Oct 6, 2014)

My tarantula read Being and Nothingness by Sartre and has been in gloomy ever since...

Reactions: Like 4 | Funny 1


----------



## elliotulysses (Oct 6, 2014)

DamonVikki said:


> But to answer the OP original question.... Yes....I believe on an instinctual level, they might feel confined.  This feeling could be diminished due to captive breeding, but may not ever go away.  Think about it.  Every creature is designed to roam freely and explore its environment.
> 
> ---------- Post added 10-06-2014 at 08:25 PM ----------
> 
> ...


Completely agree.  Though they are making human progress with people with severe autism, getting them to communicate with programs.  I've heard some technology to read dog thoughts, though very basic and not very good...  If mammals and humans have some possibility of this perhaps it won't be long to get reptilian or arachnid cumbersome technology too.  Give it a few centuries.
Our ghosts can hover around to wait

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## scorpionchaos (Oct 6, 2014)

Actually a recent study is sweeping the reptile world were a trained bearded dragon opened a locked door infront of other bearded dragons to get a treat for himself. The bearded dragons that watched him were able to figure out how to open the door. The group that didn't see the bearded dragon did not open the door.

pretty cool stuff actually 

http://www.reptilesmagazine.com/Liz...gon-Lizards-Are-Smarter-That-You-Might-Think/


----------



## gobey (Oct 6, 2014)

scorpionchaos said:


> Actually a recent study is sweeping the reptile world were a trained bearded dragon opened a locked door infront of other bearded dragons to get a treat for himself. The bearded dragons that watched him were able to figure out how to open the door. The group that didn't see the bearded dragon did not open the door.
> 
> pretty cool stuff actually
> 
> http://www.reptilesmagazine.com/Liz...gon-Lizards-Are-Smarter-That-You-Might-Think/


How much of that problem solving equates to emotion as well? Does intelligence = emotions?


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Oct 6, 2014)

Poec54 said:


> And you know this how?  They certainly must feel something when basic drives are satisfied, whether food, water, security, evading a predator, etc.  And stressed & anxious when they're deprived of those.  They can't feel pain, and a sense of relief when it stops?  Set your ego aside; a lot of human emotions are driven by satisfying the same basic urges every animal has.


They lack a limbic system, which pretty much nullifies any emotions for them.  Outside of that, you're delving into purely philosophical ideas with regards to emotions vs instinct/urges.


----------



## elliotulysses (Oct 6, 2014)

scorpionchaos said:


> Actually a recent study is sweeping the reptile world were a trained bearded dragon opened a locked door infront of other bearded dragons to get a treat for himself. The bearded dragons that watched him were able to figure out how to open the door. The group that didn't see the bearded dragon did not open the door.
> 
> pretty cool stuff actually
> 
> http://www.reptilesmagazine.com/Liz...gon-Lizards-Are-Smarter-That-You-Might-Think/


That's too cool.  I'd love to see more research

---------- Post added 10-06-2014 at 10:22 PM ----------




gobey said:


> How much of that problem solving equates to emotion as well? Does intelligence = emotions?


I think the fact of the manner is there are too many variables.  We barely have a concept between human intelligence and regards to emotional capacity.

---------- Post added 10-06-2014 at 10:26 PM ----------




freedumbdclxvi said:


> They lack a limbic system, which pretty much nullifies any emotions for them.  Outside of that, you're delving into purely philosophical ideas with regards to emotions vs instinct/urges.


But that's a human brain.  I don't think there are any arachnid neuroscientists out there.  Parts of brains function differently between people(thus the lack of specific explanation for mental illness) I can imagine a barely delved into science can even vaguely be understood.  Think of Freud only a bit over a century ago!
This conversation is so stimulating!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Oct 6, 2014)

You're projecting human emotions upon arachnid physiology that *doesn't* have the parts or processes that give forth our emotional response.


----------



## elliotulysses (Oct 6, 2014)

freedumbdclxvi said:


> You're projecting human emotions upon arachnid physiology that *doesn't* have the parts or processes that give forth our emotional response.


Exactly.  We don't know much about the human brain or emotions, let alone something as foreign as an arachnid.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Poec54 (Oct 6, 2014)

HungryGhost said:


> None of my tarantulas show the slightest bit of remorse after killing crickets.


And do you?  And what about the cows that are slaughtered in order to feed you?  Remorse?


----------



## elliotulysses (Oct 6, 2014)

Not that I'm saying they feel happy, sad, in love etc. But just maybe a wider incomprehensible range of something so different from what we call emotions.

---------- Post added 10-06-2014 at 11:02 PM ----------




Poec54 said:


> And do you?


I personally enjoy that.
I almost feel sad when my roaches are waning...


----------



## Poec54 (Oct 6, 2014)

elliotulysses said:


> Not that I'm saying they feel happy, sad, in love etc. But just maybe a wider incomprehensible range of something so different from what we call emotions.


Thank you.  When their basic urges are satisfied: a starving spider finally getting a meal, or a dehydrated spider crawling to water, they have to feel something.  Maybe not joy in the way we express it, but there has to be a sense of satisfaction and relief.

Are tarantulas 'depressed' in captivity, no.  But can they feel frustration that they can't get out after repeated attempts, or that food and water don't occur on the same schedules they do in it's native habitat?  Maybe.  

---------- Post added 10-06-2014 at 11:05 PM ----------




freedumbdclxvi said:


> They lack a limbic system, which pretty much nullifies any emotions for them.  Outside of that, you're delving into purely philosophical ideas with regards to emotions vs instinct/urges.


You're thinking in human terms and applying that to spiders.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Oct 6, 2014)

No, you're thinking causation in human terms and applying it to an animal that lacks the capacity or functions for emotions.  I really suggest everyone interested read up on spider biology - fascinating subject.  They don't *need* us to try and make them into something they aren't.


----------



## Poec54 (Oct 6, 2014)

freedumbdclxvi said:


> No, you're thinking causation in human terms and applying it to an animal that lacks the capacity or functions for emotions.



They have the same basic needs humans do: food, water, shelter.  They're not stressed when they don't have those?  The stress isn't reduced when those needs are met?  There's no emotion when they're fighting for their life with a predator?  And no sense of relief when they survive the encounter?  It may be primitive, but there's emotions involved.  They're not robots.  They're alert, they make decisions.  They outwit us often enough.


----------



## telepatella (Oct 6, 2014)

Nobody supporting the idea that T's have emotions has ever made compelling statement, point or argument. Proving a point by saying something _must be_ or _could be_ or _has to be_ is less than anecdotal - it borders on magical thinking. Comparing spiders to people would be an analogy that I would use to distinguish two absolutely disparate things like say, spiders and people - doh... The whole argument itself is a tired, tired narrative. I see it as an appealing and seductive meme but it falls into the super soft science category, speculative arm-chairery, musing. I have spoken thus, let this be the last time we visit this!


----------



## Poec54 (Oct 7, 2014)

telepatella said:


> Nobody supporting the argument that T's have emotions has ever made compelling statement. Proving a point by saying something _must be_ or _could be_ or _has to be_ so is less than anecdotal - it borders on magical thinking. The whole argument itself is a tired, tired narrative.



Thanks for clearing that up.  I've yet to see anything compelling here for the other side, other than 'it's not possible' and that seems to be good enough for you.


----------



## telepatella (Oct 7, 2014)

I'm saying there has been no argument to contradict the _non_ - conclusively, categorically etc. The burden of proof is on ya'll. I could not positively hold to the claims being tossed around.


----------



## freddierossero (Oct 7, 2014)

As far as I'm concerned, it's a bit ridiculous to assert that spiders experience complex emotions in the way that humans do. Of course they don't. But as Poec said, they're not robots, and they do have positive and negative responses to stimuli that probably go beyond base "instinct", however we're defining that. And as has also been said, figuring out what they _do_ feel is almost necessarily speculation. We can study their biology and with better technology and deeper scientific understanding we might be able to get closer to understanding what they experience. But we'll never be able to fully understand the way a spider experiences the world; we can't even do that with the person sitting next to us.

As far as spider keeping goes, I think we just have to do the best we can to reduce what's obviously negative, try to keep our spiders in good health, and observe and learn from their behavior to continually make improvements when it's possible. Obviously that's what's been done by those people who have been keeping spiders for decades--or any animal for that matter. It will be interesting to see what changes are made in the hobby in the future, though.

tl,dr; Spiders don't experience what we experience in the way we experience it. That doesn't mean we can't have compassion for them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DVMT (Oct 7, 2014)

gobey said:


> How much of that problem solving equates to emotion as well? Does intelligence = emotions?


I don't think so.  I know humans who are intelligent and seem to have no emotions.  Two different parts of the brain as well.....at least in humans.  The same can't be said about tarantulas.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## elliotulysses (Oct 7, 2014)

freddierossero said:


> As far as I'm concerned, it's a bit ridiculous to assert that spiders experience complex emotions in the way that humans do. Of course they don't. But as Poec said, they're not robots, and they do have positive and negative responses to stimuli that probably go beyond base "instinct", however we're defining that. And as has also been said, figuring out what they _do_ feel is almost necessarily speculation. We can study their biology and with better technology and deeper scientific understanding we might be able to get closer to understanding what they experience. But we'll never be able to fully understand the way a spider experiences the world; we can't even do that with the person sitting next to us.
> 
> As far as spider keeping goes, I think we just have to do the best we can to reduce what's obviously negative, try to keep our spiders in good health, and observe and learn from their behavior to continually make improvements when it's possible. Obviously that's what's been done by those people who have been keeping spiders for decades--or any animal for that matter. It will be interesting to see what changes are made in the hobby in the future, though.
> 
> tl,dr; Spiders don't experience what we experience in the way we experience it. That doesn't mean we can't have compassion for them.


This is exactly what I meant the whole time.  I don't even know if "emotions" is a correct word, moreso an approximation.  I really enjoy biology and would just like to see more research


----------



## Poec54 (Oct 7, 2014)

telepatella said:


> I could not positively hold to the claims being tossed around.



No one's asking you to.  I don't know that the 'burden of proof' is necessarily on us, anymore that it is on you.  The invertebrate body is very different than ours, and does things in different ways.  We certainly don't understand all of that.  By invertebrate standards, tarantulas have proportionately large brains.  Something's going on in there.  

It's a regular occurrence these days for scientists to discover life in conditions that have long-been assumed to be absolutely impossible.  Places like thermal heat vents in the ocean, that scientists have assured us were far too hot and toxic for anything to survive there.  And yet life thrives there.  If you want to have a knee-jerk reaction to lower animals being incapable of anything us mighty humans experience, go right ahead.

---------- Post added 10-07-2014 at 07:05 AM ----------




elliotulysses said:


> This is exactly what I meant the whole time.  I don't even know if "emotions" is a correct word, moreso an approximation.


Maybe 'emotions' is the right word after all, but our connotations tend to be from a more complex human perspective, and we look at other life forms in a biased manner.  No, they're not feeling things exactly like we do.  But there's a whole world of life forms that aren't required to act and feel the same as we do.  'If it's not like us, it doesn't count.'  Emotions is a very broad thing, and not exclusive to the humans experience, nor necessarily even mammals or even vertebrates.  There's a lot of people that have to feel they are far superior to any animal, which is strange considering we have 98% of the same DNA chimps do.


----------



## elliotulysses (Oct 7, 2014)

Poec54 said:


> No one's asking you to.  I don't know that the 'burden of proof' is necessarily on us, anymore that it is on you.  The invertebrate body is very different than ours, and does things in different ways.  We certainly don't understand all of that.  By invertebrate standards, tarantulas have proportionately large brains.  Something's going on there.
> 
> It's a regular occurrence these days for scientists to discover life in conditions that have long-been assumed to be absolutely impossible.  Places like thermal heat vents in the ocean, that scientists have assured us were far too hot and toxic for anything to survive there.  And yet life thrives there.  So if you want to have a knee-jerk reaction to lower animals being incapable of anything us mighty humans experience, go right ahead.


The shape of the brain is interesting too.  I am sure they have neurons, glia, neurotransmitters, and the whole set up but what is the function?  How does it impose on the being's physiology?
Like I said, there are no arachnid neuroscientists to my knowledge, but all we can do is speculate.  SOMETHING is there and it reacts with SOMETHING ELSE to result in a behavior.  All we can do is speculate.  It really is like envisioning a circle-triangle in regards to our current scientific standings.
This is just from my psychology experience, however this basic model goes for all life forms.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## HungryGhost (Oct 7, 2014)

Poec54 said:


> And do you?  And what about the cows that are slaughtered in order to feed you?  Remorse?


First of all, you make some pretty grand assumptions that cows are being slaughtered for me. I'm a vegetarian. Secondly, you may want to check with your doctor because I'm pretty sure your sense of humor has atrophied due to lack of use. Humor?

---------- Post added 10-07-2014 at 07:07 AM ----------




DamonVikki said:


> I dont feel remorse after eating a steak...your point?


You should.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Poec54 (Oct 7, 2014)

HungryGhost said:


> First of all, you make some pretty grand assumptions that cows are being slaughtered for me. I'm a vegetarian.


I'm a vegetarian too.  I'm also one of the forum comedians, so a lot of people are getting my humor, even if it's beyond you.


----------



## elliotulysses (Oct 7, 2014)

Poec54 said:


> No one's asking you to.  I don't know that the 'burden of proof' is necessarily on us, anymore that it is on you.  The invertebrate body is very different than ours, and does things in different ways.  We certainly don't understand all of that.  By invertebrate standards, tarantulas have proportionately large brains.  Something's going on in there.
> 
> It's a regular occurrence these days for scientists to discover life in conditions that have long-been assumed to be absolutely impossible.  Places like thermal heat vents in the ocean, that scientists have assured us were far too hot and toxic for anything to survive there.  And yet life thrives there.  If you want to have a knee-jerk reaction to lower animals being incapable of anything us mighty humans experience, go right ahead.
> 
> ...


Hell, there's scientific evidence plants have "feeling" and experience telepathy.  There is so much unknown, it's wonderful.  It's only discouraging when debate turns to insult war, or something of a more angryimpulsive nature


----------



## DVMT (Oct 7, 2014)

HungryGhost said:


> First of all, you make some pretty grand assumptions that cows are being slaughtered for me. I'm a vegetarian. Secondly, you may want to check with your doctor because I'm pretty sure your sense of humor has atrophied due to lack of use. Humor?
> 
> ---------- Post added 10-07-2014 at 07:07 AM ----------
> 
> ...


I'm not going to get into this debate with you here.  Wrong place for that topic.


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Oct 7, 2014)

Poec54 said:


> They have the same basic needs humans do: food, water, shelter.  They're not stressed when they don't have those?  The stress isn't reduced when those needs are met?  There's no emotion when they're fighting for their life with a predator?  And no sense of relief when they survive the encounter?  It may be primitive, but there's emotions involved.  They're not robots.  They're alert, they make decisions.  They outwit us often enough.


You're confusing "instinct" with "emotion".  You're trying to apply human functions, with their genesis in neurological structures that arachnids don't have, to instinctual functions.  By your reckoning, anything that fulfills an instinct has "emotion" - so cells, tissues, organs, plants and anything else would have "emotion".  By generalizing to that extent, "emotion" takes on a meaning that reduces it to a meaningless word.

---------- Post added 10-07-2014 at 08:29 AM ----------




Poec54 said:


> Thanks for clearing that up.  I've yet to see anything compelling here for the other side, other than 'it's not possible' and that seems to be good enough for you.


Except that, physiologically speaking, emotions are centered in a neurological system that arachnids don't have.  That's a very large piece of evidence you are choosing to ignore to make a case.  That pretty much ends to case for spiders having emotions.

---------- Post added 10-07-2014 at 08:42 AM ----------




Poec54 said:


> Maybe 'emotions' is the right word after all, but our connotations tend to be from a more complex human perspective, and we look at other life forms in a biased manner.  No, they're not feeling things exactly like we do.  But there's a whole world of life forms that aren't required to act and feel the same as we do.  'If it's not like us, it doesn't count.'  Emotions is a very broad thing, and not exclusive to the humans experience, nor necessarily even mammals or even vertebrates.  There's a lot of people that have to feel they are far superior to any animal, which is strange considering we have 98% of the same DNA chimps do.


We share a large portion of DNA with all life.  The point is...?

Some people need that feeling of superiority, true.  And some people understand that animals *don't* need to have emotions in the human sense to be fascinating creatures in their own right.  Unless compelling evidence is given in the future that shows arachnids *do* have the physiological structures that give rise to emotions, I see no need to assume my spiders experience happiness or sadness or anger.  As of now, scientifically speaking, all their actions are based out of instinct and not emotional drives.  That OBT flipping on its back to defend itself isn't doing so out of anger but perceived self preservation - an instinct.  Why do people need to project a human emotion onto the animal?

---------- Post added 10-07-2014 at 08:54 AM ----------




elliotulysses said:


> Hell, there's scientific evidence plants have "feeling" and experience telepathy.  There is so much unknown, it's wonderful.  It's only discouraging when debate turns to insult war, or something of a more angryimpulsive nature


I suggest reading up on the actual studies and *not* headlines - science hasn't shown evidence of plant "telepathy" anymore than it has of human telepathy.


----------



## MadMauC (Oct 7, 2014)

Great thread- luv this!!!
My comments - what then makes a happy tarantula ? 
Instinct vs emotion - is this also hormonal triggered by pheromones that T use to "feel" so they tast their emotions - 
T maternal care - am sure the slings emit a chemical pheromones that induces the mother to "do her duty" like a chemical code she deciphers? A little like how Cordyceps are able to induce their insect host to climb a high spot in order they are able to disperse their spores.


----------



## elliotulysses (Oct 7, 2014)

freedumbdclxvi said:


> You're confusing "instinct" with "emotion".  You're trying to apply human functions, with their genesis in neurological structures that arachnids don't have, to instinctual functions.  By your reckoning, anything that fulfills an instinct has "emotion" - so cells, tissues, organs, plants and anything else would have "emotion".  By generalizing to that extent, "emotion" takes on a meaning that reduces it to a meaningless word.
> 
> ---------- Post added 10-07-2014 at 08:29 AM ----------
> 
> ...


Again, telepathy is an approximation.  It's more of a study on plant reactions.
I am heavily rooted in the scientific field, especially research.  I have better critical thinking skills to not refer back to academia 
I just feel *no one* knows what's going on, but I'd like to see some studies.  It's just we *are* ego centric and not many would be interested in funding that kind of research.


----------



## Poec54 (Oct 7, 2014)

freedumbdclxvi said:


> You're confusing "instinct" with "emotion".  You're trying to apply human functions, with their genesis in neurological structures that arachnids don't have, to instinctual functions.



A large part of our emotions are from basic, instinctive needs hard-wired into us from our ancestors eons ago.  We're happy when we have ample food, water, shelter, and companions.  We're stressed and upset when we don't.  You're saying that humans being's response to the same instinct-driven needs is somehow far superior to other animals instinct-driven needs for food, water, shelter?  We're starving, we eat and we're content; invertebrates can't feel satisfaction from fulfilling the same need?  

What's different between humans and other animals is this the level of complexity.  We can feel emotions from reading, watching movies, listening to music, etc.  There's much more stimulae to trigger emotional responses in us.  But the source of many of our emotions are extremely primitive instincts.  To make the assumption that animals, even invertebrates, can't feel any of this is the human ego at work again.  We're just one of the animals on this planet.


----------



## jigalojey (Oct 7, 2014)

I think they get angry and hungry two very basic emotions that's it. Our emotions are hundreds of millions of years ahead of theirs.


----------



## Poec54 (Oct 7, 2014)

freedumbdclxvi said:


> Except that, physiologically speaking, emotions are centered in a neurological system that arachnids don't have.  That's a very large piece of evidence you are choosing to ignore to make a case.  That pretty much ends to case for spiders having emotions.


Only ends it in your mind.  We don't understand much about invertebrates, and assume that it has to be done the same way as we do it, or it doesn't count.  We're still trying to figure out how and why invertebrates work physically.  They're built far more sophisticated than what was previously thought, and scientists are applying some of those principles to inventions for human use.  As far as their responses to stimulae, decision making, emotions, etc, we have no clue.

---------- Post added 10-07-2014 at 10:35 AM ----------




jigalojey said:


> I think they get angry and hungry two very basic emotions that's it.


Hunger is a drive we share with the rest of the animal kingdom, and while we've made food into an art form, it's not much different a basic instinct than a spider eating a cricket.  Anger is more of a human emotion.  Animals fight to defend themselves and their territory, they have a vested interest in it.  We get angry for a lot of stupid reasons, and do a lot of stupid, vicious, and perverse things because of anger, which makes me question just how intelligent humans really are.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## elliotulysses (Oct 7, 2014)

Poec54 said:


> Only ends it in your mind.  We don't understand much about invertebrates, and assume that it has to be done the same way as we do it, or it doesn't count.  We're still trying to figure out how and why invertebrates work physically.  They're built far more sophisticated than what was previously thought, and scientists are applying some of those principles to inventions for human use.  As far as their responses to stimulae, decision making, emotions, etc, we have no clue.
> 
> ---------- Post added 10-07-2014 at 10:35 AM ----------
> 
> ...


Kudos Poec!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## xirxes (Oct 7, 2014)

Who said humans were intelligent?

Only the outliers present major leaps in technology/scientific thinking, the rest just bungle around, destroying this or that, sometimes running into something helpful.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Oct 7, 2014)

Poec54 said:


> A large part of our emotions are from basic, instinctive needs hard-wired into us from our ancestors eons ago.  We're happy when we have ample food, water, shelter, and companions.  We're stressed and upset when we don't.  You're saying that humans being's response to the same instinct-driven needs is somehow far superior to other animals instinct-driven needs for food, water, shelter?  We're starving, we eat and we're content; invertebrates can't feel satisfaction from fulfilling the same need?
> 
> What's different between humans and other animals is this the level of complexity.  We can feel emotions from reading, watching movies, listening to music, etc.  There's much more stimulae to trigger emotional responses in us.  But the source of many of our emotions are extremely primitive instincts.  To make the assumption that animals, even invertebrates, can't feel any of this is the human ego at work again.  We're just one of the animals on this planet.


Fulfilling an instinct/urge isn't an emotion - it is a biological function.  Emotion comes *from* the level of complexity you acknowledge.  It isn't ego to note they don't have the complex brains capable of creating emotion - ego is expecting them to have similar emotional response despite the lack of neurological parts and functions shown to give rise to it.  They *certainly* perceive the world in a way alien to us - but their nervous system as of yet shows no organ/organs that give rise to emotions.

Vertebrates, however, *have* been shown to have similar systems which give rise to emotions, which have been the source of much study.  Inverts - not so much.  Could that change?  Sure.  But as of right now, it is closer to "wishful thinking" than it is to scientific fact.

---------- Post added 10-07-2014 at 02:34 PM ----------




Poec54 said:


> Only ends it in your mind.  We don't understand much about invertebrates, and assume that it has to be done the same way as we do it, or it doesn't count.  We're still trying to figure out how and why invertebrates work physically.  They're built far more sophisticated than what was previously thought, and scientists are applying some of those principles to inventions for human use.  As far as their responses to stimulae, decision making, emotions, etc, we have no clue.


We have a good idea what their nervous systems are and aren't capable of neurologically.  Your best bet as far as emotional response in inverts would be species that share a hive / "hive mind" like bees or ants.  Arthropods that fulfill different roles with their own society that end up giving rise to higher functions.  However, as of right now, no such higher functions exist in other arthropods, including spiders.  We may be learning more and more each day, but that would be an *incredible* discovery.  Not impossible, but both incredible and improbable.  However, as of now, believing they are capable of emotion without any evidence is anthropomorphizing an order of animals which does a disservice to them, especially considering how amazing said order is in terms of longevity and adaptability.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Poec54 (Oct 7, 2014)

freedumbdclxvi said:


> Fulfilling an instinct/urge isn't an emotion - it is a biological function.



But fulfilling instincts, or failing to, is a major source of our emotions.  Then is much of what we consider to be our emotions just 'biological functions?'  I just don't see that what we do and why we do it separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.  What makes us human is a matter of degree, not absolutes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DVMT (Oct 7, 2014)

Also, many of my fellow keepers, as well as myself, always mention how "stressed" they can get during shipping, rehousing, ect.  If they feel stress and agitation (threat postures anyone?), then they must "feel" something, right.  We just simply do not know what level of feelings they have.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Oct 7, 2014)

Poec54 said:


> But fulfilling instincts, or failing to, is a major source of our emotions.  Then is much of what we consider to be our emotions just 'biological functions?'  I just don't see that what we do and why we do it separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.  What makes us human is a matter of degree, not absolutes.


Agreed, it *is* a matter of degrees, but in those degrees is where the differences occur.  As you said, we share over 98% of our genetic structure with chimps, yet the less than 2% is where we differ.  Also, of course biological functions are a source of emotions, but the genesis of emotions is within our neurological systems that give rise to our understanding and interpretation of those functions, as well as other sources of emotion.  You are trying to make it seem as if our ability to feel emotions creates a chasm between us and all other animals.  It no more creates a chasm than a spider's ability to web creates a chasm between it and the rest of the animal kingdom.  Do some people use that as a reason to pull us out of the animal kingdom, and thereby nature, as a whole?  Sure.  But just because some people do that *doesn't* mean stating a spider cannot feel emotions is a sign of superiority.  It is just a fact.  People can't web - that doesn't make spider superior or humans inferior.  It just is a fact.

---------- Post added 10-07-2014 at 03:22 PM ----------




DamonVikki said:


> Also, many of my fellow keepers, as well as myself, always mention how "stressed" they can get during shipping, rehousing, ect.  If they feel stress and agitation (threat postures anyone?), then they must "feel" something, right.  We just simply do not know what level of feelings they have.


Building structures can be stressed - that doesn't mean they are depressed or angry.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Zigana (Oct 7, 2014)

I agree with Poec54 and the others. Why would tarantulas of the same genus and species behave differently from the same egg sac or not? One may be timid the other bold, one flees at what may be danger while another threat poses and stands it's  ground? Why wouldn't they both run if they are acting on solely instinct? Why does one like mealworms, Dubia roaches  and crickets but the other will only eat crickets? 

It seems like there is a lot more to learn about tarantulas.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## elliotulysses (Oct 7, 2014)

Zigana said:


> I agree with Poec54 and the others. Why would tarantulas of the same genus and species behave differently from the same egg sac or not? One may be timid the other bold, one flees at what may be danger while another threat poses and stands it's  ground? Why wouldn't they both run if they are acting on solely instinct? Why does one like mealworms, Dubia roaches  and crickets but the other will only eat crickets?
> 
> It seems like there is a lot more to learn about tarantulas.


Exactly.  I'd like to know why my little g. rosea sling is so people-oriented and will literally run on to your hand just to sit on it, while my MF acts as if she is an OBT and ANOTHER MF is an absolute doll that I've used for photoshoots.  
I just don't think we have the technology to understand even what the arachnid equivalent of an emotion is, nonetheless interpret it
I feel like I've said the same thing over and over, so I'll just lurk and see what comes up

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DVMT (Oct 7, 2014)

freedumbdclxvi said:


> Agreed, it *is* a matter of degrees, but in those degrees is where the differences occur.  As you said, we share over 98% of our genetic structure with chimps, yet the less than 2% is where we differ.  Also, of course biological functions are a source of emotions, but the genesis of emotions is within our neurological systems that give rise to our understanding and interpretation of those functions, as well as other sources of emotion.  You are trying to make it seem as if our ability to feel emotions creates a chasm between us and all other animals.  It no more creates a chasm than a spider's ability to web creates a chasm between it and the rest of the animal kingdom.  Do some people use that as a reason to pull us out of the animal kingdom, and thereby nature, as a whole?  Sure.  But just because some people do that *doesn't* mean stating a spider cannot feel emotions is a sign of superiority.  It is just a fact.  People can't web - that doesn't make spider superior or humans inferior.  It just is a fact.
> 
> ---------- Post added 10-07-2014 at 03:22 PM ----------
> 
> ...


I don't think that I am going out on a limb when I say we are talking about two different kinds of stress.  There is physical stress, which you are referring to, and there is mental stress.  Are you suggesting that they are physically stressed?


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Oct 7, 2014)

Zigana said:


> I agree with Poec54 and the others. Why would tarantulas of the same genus and species behave differently from the same egg sac or not? One may be timid the other bold, one flees at what may be danger while another threat poses and stands it's  ground? Why wouldn't they both run if they are acting on solely instinct? Why does one like mealworms, Dubia roaches  and crickets but the other will only eat crickets?
> 
> It seems like there is a lot more to learn about tarantulas.


What do individual reactions to stimuli have anything to do with emotions?


----------



## laurenkane (Oct 7, 2014)

I know this is a stretch but even water and plants can feel emotion/energy. Plants that are yelled at, called negative names, etc. don't grow as large and as vibrantly as those that are given positive interaction. Water does the same thing but seen on a molecular level. Look it up - lots of research on the topic. But, if that can be said of a plant or water, I am sure tarantulas, and all living things for that matter, have a certain sense of feeling - emotion or not.

---------- Post added 10-07-2014 at 03:04 PM ----------




Zigana said:


> I agree with Poec54 and the others. Why would tarantulas of the same genus and species behave differently from the same egg sac or not? One may be timid the other bold, one flees at what may be danger while another threat poses and stands it's  ground? Why wouldn't they both run if they are acting on solely instinct? Why does one like mealworms, Dubia roaches  and crickets but the other will only eat crickets?
> 
> It seems like there is a lot more to learn about tarantulas.


YES. super interesting stuff....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## vespers (Oct 7, 2014)

Zigana said:


> Why would tarantulas of the same genus and species behave differently from the same egg sac or not? One may be timid the other bold, one flees at what may be danger while another threat poses and stands it's  ground? Why wouldn't they both run if they are acting on solely instinct? Why does one like mealworms, Dubia roaches  and crickets but the other will only eat crickets?


Because organisms are not created equal. Even amongst siblings of the same species and gender. One may grow larger than its brother/sister...one may be stronger, one may be faster, one may be colored/patterned a little differently. If these variations exist in physical attributes among siblings, then of course there will be variations in the nervous and biochemical systems as well. Said variations would result in varying preferences and reactions to different situations and stimuli.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## elliotulysses (Oct 7, 2014)

vespers said:


> Because organisms are not created equal. Even amongst siblings of the same species and gender. One may grow larger than its brother/sister...one may be stronger, one may be faster, one may be colored/patterned a little differently. If these variations exist in physical attributes among siblings, then of course there will be variations in the nervous and biochemical systems as well. Said variations would result in varying preferences and reactions to different situations and stimuli.


And reactions to stimuli would be *something like an emotion.*
Take a human example.  You are tired.  You are given coffee.  You are now happy and energized because someone gave you coffee.  This may play into how you interpret everything from then on outward.  There's a lot of psychological and philosophical deep reasoning into this and I feel like we can just scratch the surface.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Zigana (Oct 7, 2014)

freedumbdclxvi said:


> What do individual reactions to stimuli have anything to do with emotions?


Your answer is within your question.


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Oct 7, 2014)

Zigana said:


> Your answer is within your question.


No, it isn't.  Expound upon your statement.  Unless you're saying that, since certain types of cells may or may not react in a similar manner to certain stimuli, cells have emotions.

---------- Post added 10-07-2014 at 05:36 PM ----------




elliotulysses said:


> And reactions to stimuli would be *something like an emotion.*.


No, they wouldn't, unless you're pretty much wanting to expand the definition of emotions to the point of nonsensical meaningless.


----------



## telepatella (Oct 7, 2014)

My pet rock is in love with me, It it gazes longingly at me, there's my proof.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## vespers (Oct 7, 2014)

elliotulysses said:


> And reactions to stimuli would be *something like an emotion.*
> Take a human example.  You are tired.  You are given coffee.  You are now happy and energized because someone gave you coffee.  This may play into how you interpret everything from then on outward.  There's a lot of psychological and philosophical deep reasoning into this and I feel like we can just scratch the surface.


  That seems flawed, even if you assume one has a preference for coffee in the first place.
Different example: You accidentally touch a hot burner. Your _instinctive_ reaction to this stimuli is to pull away from the physical sensation of pain. How I _feel_ about being burnt, is an emotion. These are different things.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Oct 7, 2014)

vespers said:


> That seems flawed, even if you assume one has a preference for coffee in the first place.
> Different example: You accidentally touch a hot burner. Your _instinctive_ reaction to this stimuli is to pull away from the physical sensation of pain. How I _feel_ about being burnt, is an emotion. These are different things.


Bingo.  That's a great example.


----------



## elliotulysses (Oct 7, 2014)

vespers said:


> That seems flawed, even if you assume one has a preference for coffee in the first place.
> Different example: You accidentally touch a hot burner. Your _instinctive_ reaction to this stimuli is to pull away from the physical sensation of pain. How I _feel_ about being burnt, is an emotion. These are different things.


Yeah but there's no knowledge.  In simple philosophical terms it is logically possible, though at this moment это так хуйня. 
Surely I don't think my spider thinks about politics or becomes morally outraged, but what about spider emotions?  Can we envision it--yes do we know--no way

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Oct 7, 2014)

You're not envisioning it, though - you're projecting it via anthropomorphic wishful thinking.  Spiders don't need us pretending they have emotions for them to be amazing creatures.  I am not sure "logically possible" even fits, considering, based on what we know about their nervous systems, they lack the components that give rise to emotion.  Remotely possible?  Sure.  Logically possible?  Eh, not really.

---------- Post added 10-07-2014 at 11:47 PM ----------

One further thing before bed.  I cannot help but notice a number of people arguing that tarantulas have emotions are among those that are adamantly against handling.  The two ideas seem contradictory to me.  *If* you posit that tarantulas have emotions, then you posit that they construct memories and can feel approximations of joy, anger, sadness, etc.  Which means that handling, considered by many to be *only* for the keepers, would then be a possible, if not probable, source of joy to the spider.  If emotional association via memory occurs in T's, then they would probably then grow to accept, if not enjoy, handling.  You can't have it both ways - they are either creatures of instinct that get nothing out of handling *or* they are emotional beings that would have the potential for enjoying handling.


----------



## Poec54 (Oct 8, 2014)

freedumbdclxvi said:


> 1 - You're projecting it via anthropomorphic wishful thinking.
> 
> 2 - I cannot help but notice a number of people arguing that tarantulas have emotions are among those that are adamantly against handling.  The two ideas seem contradictory to me.


1 - Or, you could be using the old 'human superiority' argument, that we are above animals and if they don't do it like we do, it doesn't count.  For us, yes a certain part of the brain does this, another part does that, etc.  But there's no reason to assume that they don't have equivalent parts of their brain that handles those things.  You can't prove otherwise.  

You continue to twist things around.  We're not saying they feel anger, joy, and sadness.  We're saying they can feel stress when deprived of food, water, shelter, etc.   And when those needs are fulfilled, the stress is reduced and there's a good possibility of them feeling some sense of relief and contentment.  That's emotion.  Not complex human emotions, but simple, primitive emotion.  Again, you're looking at it from a human perspective, that it has to be like us to count.  

2 - Yet again you're making incorrect assumptions.  It's BECAUSE we respect them as thinking, feeling creatures, that we believe handling them is a selfish, egotistical human action.  It's something they never experience in the wild and certainly has to be a source of confusion and stress to them.  A large animal picks them up in the wild and they're eaten. Period.  It's not a source of 'joy' as you speculate.  What', it's like 'King Kong' where the blond falls in love with the giant ape?  Their drives are about food, water, shelter, and reproduction (which is most of our lives too).  They could get joy from being handled by a creature as huge as Godzilla?  That's scientific?  The leap in assumptions you make here is staggering.  Every animal is the wild is just lonely and looking for a buddy to cuddle with?  That's what emotions are to you?  Feely, touchy?  Have you forgotten the vast majority of spiders are cannibalistic, and have no social needs?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## vespers (Oct 8, 2014)

Poec54 said:


> 1 - Or, you could be using the old 'human superiority' argument, that we are above animals and if they don't do it like we do, it doesn't count.  For us, yes a certain part of the brain does this, another part does that, etc.  But there's no reason to assume that they don't have equivalent parts of their brain that handles those things.  You can't prove otherwise.
> 
> You continue to twist things around.  We're not saying they feel anger, joy, and sadness.  We're saying they can feel stress when deprived of food, water, shelter, etc.   And when those needs are fulfilled, the stress is reduced and there's a good possibility of them feeling some sense of relief and contentment.  That's emotion.  Not complex human emotions, but simple, primitive emotion.  Again, you're looking at it from a human perspective, that it has to be like us to count.


 _You're_ twisting things around, adding this "human superiority" slant to the conversation that no one is saying. That's just a straw man on your part. In an attempt to distill this debate down to its essence: it seems as if you're considering instinct and "simple, primitive emotion" to be one and the same, while freedumb and I are saying they aren't.



Poec54 said:


> 2 - Yet again you're making incorrect assumptions.  It's BECAUSE we respect them as thinking, feeling creatures, that we believe handling them is a selfish, egotistical human action.  It's something they never experience in the wild and certainly has to be a source of confusion and stress to them.  A large animal picks them up in the wild and they're eaten. Period.  It's not a source of 'joy' as you speculate.  What', it's like 'King Kong' where the blond falls in love with the giant ape?  Their drives are about food, water, shelter, and reproduction (which is most of our lives too).  They could get joy from being handled by a creature as huge as Godzilla?  That's scientific?  The leap in assumptions you make here is staggering.  Every animal is the wild is just lonely and looking for a buddy to cuddle with?  That's what emotions are to you?  Feely, touchy?  Have you forgotten the vast majority of spiders are cannibalistic, and have no social needs?


 The straw men you make here are staggering. You know full well that no one is insinuating that they enjoy being eaten, nor are they lonely/looking for a cuddle buddy. Not to mention you're jumping the shark a bit with the King Kong/blond talk. At this point, we must only be a few posts away from invoking Godwin's Law...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ghost Dragon (Oct 8, 2014)

Well, this thread sure is generating some interesting (and entertaining) discussion. LOL

I think we're all guilty of anthropomorphic projection to one degree or another.  Do they have emotions like people?  I'm not learned enough to answer that.  Is it fun to think about?  Sure is. 

As a comparison, I went to a falconry workshop on the weekend.  One of the instructors, who has been into falconry since 1976, flat out said that if you're looking for a cuddle bird, go get a budgie.  These raptors are not designed for that, they are hunters, plain & simple (not sure I'd WANT to cuddle with a 5-6 pound Red Tailed Hawk, with a 5 foot wingspan and razor sharp talons).  The object of the hobby is to hunt WITH them, so that a mutual trust is forged, so that they know you're not there to hurt them but to help them hunt & look after them, and that they will not rip your face off at the slightest provocation, will return to your glove hand on command, and will accept being fed by you while they perch on your glove.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Python (Oct 8, 2014)

I think Poec's post was taken in the wrong light. As I read it, the assertion was made that the people who are arguing in favor of tarantulas having emotions are also predominantly against tarantula handling. Further, the assertion was made that this correlation is flawed because if tarantulas do have emotions then there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't enjoy being handled. That's the way I understood both sides anyway. If I'm wrong, I apologize and please correct the mistake. 

I don't think Poec's rebuttal is a straw man since tarantulas are relatively small and vulnerable and as such the natural assumption would be that they wouldn't enjoy it at all. Add to this the fact that they aren't use to substrate that moves under their feet and the fear of falling might play a role in their apprehension. It just seems to me that adding a counterpoint to the discussion shouldn't be considered a straw man. 

I have no idea whether a tarantula has emotions or not. I keep them in such a manner that their needs are met and if they do have emotions, hopefully they are positive ones. I think most everyone here can say the same thing so the emotion question is purely academic in my opinion. I don't think there are very many people here who have unhappy spiders and I think that is the important thing. I'd like to know if they can "feel" emotions but I don't think that we will figure it out in this thread. That said, sorry for the interruption and carry on. This is pretty interesting.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## vespers (Oct 8, 2014)

Python said:


> I don't think Poec's rebuttal is a straw man since tarantulas are relatively small and vulnerable and as such the natural assumption would be that they wouldn't enjoy it at all. Add to this the fact that they aren't use to substrate that moves under their feet and the fear of falling might play a role in their apprehension. It just seems to me that adding a counterpoint to the discussion shouldn't be considered a straw man.


This is the evolution of a straw man in the discussion:

#31





Poec54 said:


> Maybe 'emotions' is the right word after all, but our connotations tend to be from a more complex human perspective, and we look at other life forms in a biased manner.  No, they're not feeling things exactly like we do.  But there's a whole world of life forms that aren't required to act and feel the same as we do.  'If it's not like us, it doesn't count.'  Emotions is a very broad thing, and not exclusive to the humans experience, nor necessarily even mammals or even vertebrates.  There's a lot of people that have to feel they are far superior to any animal, which is strange considering we have 98% of the same DNA chimps do.


#40





Poec54 said:


> A large part of our emotions are from basic, instinctive needs hard-wired into us from our ancestors eons ago.  We're happy when we have ample food, water, shelter, and companions.  We're stressed and upset when we don't.  You're saying that humans being's response to the same instinct-driven needs is somehow far superior to other animals instinct-driven needs for food, water, shelter?  We're starving, we eat and we're content; invertebrates can't feel satisfaction from fulfilling the same need?
> 
> What's different between humans and other animals is this the level of complexity.  We can feel emotions from reading, watching movies, listening to music, etc.  There's much more stimulae to trigger emotional responses in us.  But the source of many of our emotions are extremely primitive instincts.  To make the assumption that animals, even invertebrates, can't feel any of this is the human ego at work again.  We're just one of the animals on this planet.


#63





Poec54 said:


> 1 - Or, you could be using the old 'human superiority' argument, that we are above animals and if they don't do it like we do, it doesn't count.  For us, yes a certain part of the brain does this, another part does that, etc.  But there's no reason to assume that they don't have equivalent parts of their brain that handles those things.  You can't prove otherwise.
> 
> You continue to twist things around.  We're not saying they feel anger, joy, and sadness.  We're saying they can feel stress when deprived of food, water, shelter, etc.   And when those needs are fulfilled, the stress is reduced and there's a good possibility of them feeling some sense of relief and contentment.  That's emotion.  Not complex human emotions, but simple, primitive emotion.  Again, you're looking at it from a human perspective, that it has to be like us to count.


This whole "human=superior" concept was introduced by Rick, with repeated attempts in his rebuttals to apply it to freedumb and tear it down...despite freedumb never saying or insinuating such a thing. Biological complexity isn't synonymous with superiority, just as instinct isn't synonymous with emotion. No matter how many times one throws them at the wall and hopes they'll stick.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MadMauC (Oct 8, 2014)

Specific to the OP's thread - Depression - derived from a deprivation of physical or mental needs ?
Physical - sex, hunger, thirst, temperature, humidity 
Mental - love, envy, jealousy, greed, happy, sad etc.
IMO higher animals would experience both, lower animals experience only the physical - I currently have a MM L Violaceoceps that's huddled to a corner in the open and not using his vertical hide does seemed very "depressed" whilst the MMs that have the opportunity to a MF seemed to be zinging and drumming with joy the minute they detect the presence of a MF. 
Higher intelligent animals have the capacity to gain gratification from praise, love, encouragement, reward etc which lower animals don't.


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Oct 8, 2014)

Vespers nailed the responses.


----------



## elliotulysses (Oct 8, 2014)

freedumbdclxvi said:


> You're not envisioning it, though - you're projecting it via anthropomorphic wishful thinking.  Spiders don't need us pretending they have emotions for them to be amazing creatures.  I am not sure "logically possible" even fits, considering, based on what we know about their nervous systems, they lack the components that give rise to emotion.  Remotely possible?  Sure.  Logically possible?  Eh, not really.
> 
> ---------- Post added 10-07-2014 at 11:47 PM ----------
> 
> One further thing before bed.  I cannot help but notice a number of people arguing that tarantulas have emotions are among those that are adamantly against handling.  The two ideas seem contradictory to me.  *If* you posit that tarantulas have emotions, then you posit that they construct memories and can feel approximations of joy, anger, sadness, etc.  Which means that handling, considered by many to be *only* for the keepers, would then be a possible, if not probable, source of joy to the spider.  If emotional association via memory occurs in T's, then they would probably then grow to accept, if not enjoy, handling.  You can't have it both ways - they are either creatures of instinct that get nothing out of handling *or* they are emotional beings that would have the potential for enjoying handling.


Logical possibility holds that Santa is true.  It is a term used "if you can make a story about it" then it's logically possible.  It doesn't have to necessarily fall into the laws of the world as we know 
And nah.  Not projecting.  As someone who has a limbic system on fire I don't think I even could project.
Its moreso the fact no one knows what goes on and what does go on certainly isn't human....

---------- Post added 10-08-2014 at 10:02 AM ----------




Poec54 said:


> 1 - Or, you could be using the old 'human superiority' argument, that we are above animals and if they don't do it like we do, it doesn't count.  For us, yes a certain part of the brain does this, another part does that, etc.  But there's no reason to assume that they don't have equivalent parts of their brain that handles those things.  You can't prove otherwise.
> 
> You continue to twist things around.  We're not saying they feel anger, joy, and sadness.  We're saying they can feel stress when deprived of food, water, shelter, etc.   And when those needs are fulfilled, the stress is reduced and there's a good possibility of them feeling some sense of relief and contentment.  That's emotion.  Not complex human emotions, but simple, primitive emotion.  Again, you're looking at it from a human perspective, that it has to be like us to count.
> 
> 2 - Yet again you're making incorrect assumptions.  It's BECAUSE we respect them as thinking, feeling creatures, that we believe handling them is a selfish, egotistical human action.  It's something they never experience in the wild and certainly has to be a source of confusion and stress to them.  A large animal picks them up in the wild and they're eaten. Period.  It's not a source of 'joy' as you speculate.  What', it's like 'King Kong' where the blond falls in love with the giant ape?  Their drives are about food, water, shelter, and reproduction (which is most of our lives too).  They could get joy from being handled by a creature as huge as Godzilla?  That's scientific?  The leap in assumptions you make here is staggering.  Every animal is the wild is just lonely and looking for a buddy to cuddle with?  That's what emotions are to you?  Feely, touchy?  Have you forgotten the vast majority of spiders are cannibalistic, and have no social needs?


Thank you so much 
I've been trying to say I don't think my T is sad because it doesn't have the privilege of getting coffee or upset about not being able to vote
Its like Ts eyesight.  They pick up on a spectrum we can only cumbersomely imitate with technology
It's really a whole new game here

---------- Post added 10-08-2014 at 10:07 AM ----------




MadMauC said:


> Specific to the OP's thread - Depression - derived from a deprivation of physical or mental needs ?
> Physical - sex, hunger, thirst, temperature, humidity
> Mental - love, envy, jealousy, greed, happy, sad etc.
> IMO higher animals would experience both, lower animals experience only the physical - I currently have a MM L Violaceoceps that's huddled to a corner in the open and not using his vertical hide does seemed very "depressed" whilst the MMs that have the opportunity to a MF seemed to be zinging and drumming with joy the minute they detect the presence of a MF.
> Higher intelligent animals have the capacity to gain gratification from praise, love, encouragement, reward etc which lower animals don't.


I wouldn't say that.  Animals are used for classical conditioning all the time


----------



## goodoldneon (Oct 8, 2014)

In which, my favorite writer, David Foster Wallace, asks us to Consider the Lobster:

"(…)And there’s more unhappy news respecting suffering-criterion number one. Lobsters don’t have much in the way of eyesight or hearing, but they do have an exquisite tactile sense, one facilitated by hundreds of thousands of tiny hairs that protrude through their carapace. “Thus,” in the words of T.M. Prudden’s industry classic About Lobster, “it is that although encased in what seems a solid, impenetrable armor, the lobster can receive stimuli and impressions from without as readily as if it possessed a soft and delicate skin.” And lobsters do have nociceptors,17 as well as invertebrate versions of the prostaglandins and major neurotransmitters via which our own brains register pain.

Lobsters do not, on the other hand, appear to have the equipment for making or absorbing natural opioids like endorphins and enkephalins, which are what more advanced nervous systems use to try to handle intense pain. From this fact, though, one could conclude either that lobsters are maybe even more vulnerable to pain, since they lack mammalian nervous systems’ built-in analgesia, or, instead, that the absence of natural opioids implies an absence of the really intense pain-sensations that natural opioids are designed to mitigate. I for one can detect a marked upswing in mood as I contemplate this latter possibility: It could be that their lack of endorphin/enkephalin hardware means that lobsters’ raw subjective experience of pain is so radically different from mammals’ that it may not even deserve the term pain. Perhaps lobsters are more like those frontal-lobotomy patients one reads about who report experiencing pain in a totally different way than you and I. These patients evidently do feel physical pain, neurologically speaking, but don’t dislike it—though neither do they like it; it’s more that they feel it but don’t feel anything about it—the point being that the pain is not distressing to them or something they want to get away from. Maybe lobsters, who are also without frontal lobes, are detached from the neurological-registration-of-injury-or-hazard we call pain in just the same way. There is, after all, a difference between (1) pain as a purely neurological event, and (2) actual suffering, which seems crucially to involve an emotional component, an awareness of pain as unpleasant, as something to fear/dislike/want to avoid.

Still, after all the abstract intellection, there remain the facts of the frantically clanking lid, the pathetic clinging to the edge of the pot. Standing at the stove, it is hard to deny in any meaningful way that this is a living creature experiencing pain and wishing to avoid/escape the painful experience. To my lay mind, the lobster’s behavior in the kettle appears to be the expression of a preference; and it may well be that an ability to form preferences is the decisive criterion for real suffering.18 The logic of this (preference p suffering) relation may be easiest to see in the negative case. If you cut certain kinds of worms in half, the halves will often keep crawling around and going about their vermiform business as if nothing had happened. When we assert, based on their post-op behavior, that these worms appear not to be suffering, what we’re really saying is that there’s no sign that the worms know anything bad has happened or would prefer not to have gotten cut in half.

Lobsters, however, are known to exhibit preferences. Experiments have shown that they can detect changes of only a degree or two in water temperature; one reason for their complex migratory cycles (which can often cover 100-plus miles a year) is to pursue the temperatures they like best.19 And, as mentioned, they’re bottom-dwellers and do not like bright light: If a tank of food lobsters is out in the sunlight or a store’s fluorescence, the lobsters will always congregate in whatever part is darkest. Fairly solitary in the ocean, they also clearly dislike the crowding that’s part of their captivity in tanks, since (as also mentioned) one reason why lobsters’ claws are banded on capture is to keep them from attacking one another under the stress of close-quarter storage."

The (brilliant and funny) essay in its entirety:

http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_lobster?currentPage=1

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Oct 8, 2014)

Great post, but still more akin to reacting to negative stimuli as opposed to an emotional response.


----------



## MadMauC (Oct 8, 2014)

QUOTE
I wouldn't say that.  Animals are used for classical conditioning all the time[/QUOTE]

Conditioning aka taming/training can be achieved with all living things to a certain level. What I am saying is lower animals (insects, invertebrates, reptiles) haven't the capacity to experience the mental gratification (joy, happiness) derived from receiving praises, rewards, encouragement as in higher intelligent animals (mammals and some birds). However lower animals with physical deprivation (food, water, temperature, shelter) and hence experience discomfort/pain etc and could be termed as physical stress but not depression. Depression seems possible only in animals who can only experience mental stress due to their higher level of intelligence because they are able project reasoning to some level and as a result are able experience joy, sadness, jealousy, elation and depression.


----------



## MrsHaas (Oct 8, 2014)

I kno I'm crazy but I sometimes think my Ts have feelings... ? Loo



--J.Haas


----------



## MrsHaas (Oct 8, 2014)

Maybe not full spectrum of emotions, but traces... Yes again maybe nuts

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Grimmdreadly (May 4, 2017)

gobey said:


> I try to sleep at night and I hear my MM Euathlus parvulus drumming at his enclosure walls.... He didn't do this until he came back from a breeding loan. Now he won't stop moving. I'm letting it be for now. But I may have to get a larger enclosure for him. His is just large enough to accomadate him as he's maybe only 2.5" max. But it has cork and a hide and he wandersbtge perimeter constantly a tap tap tappin. A bigger home may not stop the behavior but may make his constant circling of his snug custom tub for a mate a bit less "frustrating"?


This is normal. He's just doing what mature males do when searching for a mate.


----------



## Angel Minkov (May 4, 2017)

What?


----------



## JoshDM020 (May 4, 2017)

Grimmdreadly said:


> This is normal. He's just doing what mature males do when searching for a mate.


How'd a quote from a different thread wind up in a thread from 2014?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jason B (May 4, 2017)

JoshDM020 said:


> How'd a quote from a different thread wind up in a thread from 2014?


He quoted a post from the first page of this thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JoshDM020 (May 4, 2017)

Jason B said:


> He quoted a post from the first page of this thread.


Oohhhh i thought id seen that in another thread. Mustve just been similar


----------



## WeightedAbyss75 (May 4, 2017)

I love this discussion! Just wondering though, what about T's that act differently to the same stimuli on different times. I know quite a few people have T's which one day they can prod and poke and even hold with no issues, then the next day their T is venom-dripping, strinking threat monster. This can go back and forth as long as the jeeper has the T, and this occurs in many different species as well. Wouldn't a different response to the same stimuli with the same T merit  less of a _purely_ instinctual response? Personally, I fell that there is something there, if even the slightest bit of "emotion"


----------



## gobey (May 4, 2017)

Grimmdreadly said:


> This is normal. He's just doing what mature males do when searching for a mate.


Lol he's been dead for over 2 years now

RIP little guy


----------

