Tarantula Memory

[RugbyDave]

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]

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]

very interesting thread ...

 

[atmosphere]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.