On Tarantula Psychology: Consciousness vs Autonomy

[lostbrane]

I find it a tad amusing that you went out of your way that one side can’t be proved one way or another but then dumped on people that have come to a conclusion themselves. Their beliefs on this subject “being set in stone” are just as valid as believing it to be more fluidic. In any event, you cannot say that they are incorrect or it is not the truth because by your very own admission it is not able to be defined.

This seemed to warp from “being open to ideas” to “I’m right and you better see it my way” which is rather argumentative and nowhere close to a discussion...

 

[Arko]

I find it a tad amusing that you went out of your way that one side can’t be proved one way or another but then dumped on people that have come to a conclusion themselves. Their beliefs on this subject “being set in stone” are just as valid as believing it to be more fluidic. In any event, you cannot say that they are incorrect or it is not the truth because by your very own admission it is not able to be defined.

I never said their theories were wrong, I said that it is wrong to believe that it is scientifically proven that animals are conscious or not. If they have a theory that's fine, but acting like a Google search will prove my theory incorrect is wrong. It's just as valid as anyone else's.

 

[Arko]

I hate to break this news to you, but having an education - from Harvard, or any other institution of higher learning - does make someone's theories more valuable than someone's without an education. Because being educated in a particular field makes your theories less speculative and more substantiated by actual facts. That's kind of the way science works - theories that are based on facts that can be substantiated and not just wild speculations based upon feelings and personal anecdotes.

If you don't get it at this point, I don't know what to tell you. You cannot say factually that animals have consciousness or not. All anyone can possibly do is make wild speculations based upon feelings and personal anecdotes. There are no other options. Philosophy is not biological. If you showed me your HarvArd Doctorate degree in Arachnology (which I suppose you must have), I would feel no more compelled to believe your theory than I do now. This doesn't make your theory invalid, but saying you are factually correct and I am not is simply wrong.

 

[EtienneN]

If you don't get it at this point, I don't know what to tell you. You cannot say factually that animals have consciousness or not. All anyone can possibly do is make wild speculations based upon feelings and personal anecdotes. There are no other options. Philosophy is not biological. If you showed me your HarvArd Doctorate degree in Arachnology (which I suppose you must have), I would feel no more compelled to believe your theory than I do now. This doesn't make your theory invalid, but saying you are factually correct and I am not is simply wrong.

I'm sorry, on what planet did ANYONE say that claims to support the fact of higher order/human equivalent animal sentience are only based on feelings and appeals to emotion?
There is TON of evidence based on OBSERVATION. What, do you think the only way to determine sentience in other animals is by Vulcan mind melding with them??? There are many other methods available to modern science for determining sentience in other creatures.

 

[lostbrane]

Vulcan mind melding

Also mind melding with a tarantula sounds incredible.

 

[boina]

I'm sorry, on what planet did ANYONE say that claims to support the fact of higher order/human equivalent animal sentience are only based on feelings and appeals to emotion?
There is TON of evidence based on OBSERVATION. What, do you think the only way to determine sentience in other animals is by Vulcan mind melding with them??? There are many other methods available to modern science for determining sentience in other creatures.

Thank you. I was just about to say something of the kind.

If you don't get it at this point, I don't know what to tell you. You cannot say factually that animals have consciousness or not. All anyone can possibly do is make wild speculations based upon feelings and personal anecdotes. There are no other options. Philosophy is not biological. If you showed me your HarvArd Doctorate degree in Arachnology (which I suppose you must have), I would feel no more compelled to believe your theory than I do now. This doesn't make your theory invalid, but saying you are factually correct and I am not is simply wrong.

While there is certainly a philosophical part to that question it doesn't mean that there aren't scientific tests we can do - and tests that have been done - to discover evidence for consciousness in animals. One of the most famous tests is the mirror test, other tests depend on the use of language, including body language. Science is not wild speculation and anecdotes, science is doing things to test hypothesis. If you say that consciousness cannot be tested you are severely underestimating human - and animal - ingenuity. That's why I said that a lot of evidence - and I mean real scientific evidence, not speculations and anecdotes - points to the existence of consciuosness in mammals, some birds, and possibly even octopus. No hint of consciousness has ever been detected in insects and arachnids, though, making it much more likely that none exists. So, while you are right that there is no absolute proof, I can, however, make an informed decision based on the available evidence and don't need to rely solely on speculations.

And no, science and philosophy are not on the same level when it comes to explaining the natural world.

 

[NukaMedia Exotics]

I'm surprised at how many people think it's set in stone, that we've proven animals are conscious or unconscious. We have not. There are no rulebooks regarding animal sentience. Theories and speculation are all humanity has or will ever have. If I "Google it", I will find other people's theories and speculation. I could subscribe or not subscribe to other people's beliefs. This is not my prerogative. I have my own beliefs, looking at other people's could change mine, but either way it doesn't matter, because there is no way to prove one way or the other what is right and what is wrong. I am not right or wrong, you are not right or wrong, stop acting like this is not the truth.

I'll act however I want first off

You posted this thread initiating a conversation on the subject, yet when I give input that is very basic common knowledge on tarantulas (no outrageous claims on consciousness even) you respond with this? Lol.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

Instead of trying to properly quote the original post and the questions, I pulled them out for this response. I will answer them from my own first hand observations of Aphonopelma hentzi in nature.

"Do they consciously think about what they are doing when they hunt? Do they even know that what they're doing will keep them alive? Or do they act as biological robots, performing an action from a DNA-ingrained perception of an environment change?"

This is a 3-in-1 question. Tarantulas don't appear to think about what they are doing when they capture prey. Tarantulas are quick to grab at anything that resembles something they can overpower and kill. One of the best ways to capture wild tarantulas is by tickling the entrance of its burrow, or whatever retreat is has, with a long thin piece of grass to simulate a prey item. When this action is performed, the tarantula attacks it with a lot of power and holds onto it for long periods of time. This behavior indicates an "attack first ask questions later" type of mentality which is more reminiscent of instinctual behavior than a conscious decision. My interpretations is that when a tarantula ambushes potential prey, it doesn't necessarily know why it is doing it, just that it has to.

"So are tarantulas actively hunting? Calculating the perfect moment after hunting all day? Or are they just told by their little biological CPU to stand in front of the door and wait for prey to walk in, perform an action, and not even think about the result."

No, tarantulas are not active hunters. They are ambush predators that remain close to their homes and wait for something to pass by. When it is appropriate to come out of their homes to wait for passing prey is dictated by environmental cues. Their eyes are telling them when it is dark enough to emerge for example. Even for wandering sexually mature males, there is no active hunting. They feed primarily by an accidental encounter with prey.

"I have an H. Hainanum who used to just sit on top of the substrate all day, no matter what she would never go in her hole, not to hunt or hide. There is no biologically advantageous reason to not be inside of that hole. Plain and simple. She couldn't possibly know she is in captivity, she just doesn't have the brain capacity, but maybe she actively thought and knew that wherever she was living wasn't particularly dangerous. Even still, I wonder whether she consciously chose to stay out all day and night, or possibly it was her biology telling her that since there is little threat outside of her hole, it would be strategically advantageous to cover more ground with her senses. At the very least, I think this shows that tarantulas have a bit more complex brains than that of a simple machine."

Drawing conclusions on tarantula behavior based on captivity will yield inaccuracies and misinterpretations. While one can asses the reasoning behind tarantula behavior in captivity by comparing to wild behavior, the opposite is not true. With climate control and stable environmental conditions, any reason for a normally fossorial tarantula to burrow and hide is removed. Although this H. hainanum wouldn't know it is in a box in someone's house, it can determine it is in a confined space with acceptable environmental conditions which makes the use of the pre-made burrow unnecessary. The primary function of a tarantula burrow is to protect it from the elements so it has a stable environment to function in. When those needs are met in captivity, fossorial tarantulas no longer need to build their own homes.