What is owning a theraphosa like?

[phoenixxavierre]

Please,come on here... What observable results? What controlled enviroment?
Its simply your particular perception. That in science means nothing.
You need to read about what the Scientific method is.

If you are implying that an invertebrate such a tarantula can differenciate its owner from other people,then we are done here. Not to sound rude, again.
But that is an absurd.

So, it was YOU, YOU were that little fly on the wall watching my every move, sizing up the environment, just so you could come along later and BASH my comment, claiming you know as much as me about it! INGENIOUS! :worship:

I majored in experimental psychology in a state university. I know the scientific method and statistical probability analysis. All a controlled environment is, is an environment that is steadily controlled, which it was. Science does not have to be done in a laboratory. Scientific observation is often done out in the field. What is your real problem here?

If you claim that a tarantula cannot differentiate between chemical signatures or pheromones, sound waves, wind, temperature, etc., then you are really showing your ignorance and stubbornness here. That ability of theirs is fact, not a "feeling" or conjecture.

 

[Fran]

So, it was YOU, YOU were that little fly on the wall watching my every move, sizing up the environment, just so you could come along later and BASH my comment, claiming you know as much as me about it! INGENIOUS! :worship:

I majored in experimental psychology in a state university. I know the scientific method and statistical probability analysis. All a controlled environment is, is an environment that is steadily controlled, which it was. Science does not have to be done in a laboratory. Scientific observation is often done out in the field. What is your real problem here?

If you claim that a tarantula cannot differentiate between chemical signatures or pheromones, sound waves, wind, temperature, etc., then you are really showing your ignorance and stubbornness here. That ability of theirs is fact, not a "feeling" or conjecture.

I did 3 years of Physics, and I majored in Geography with a speciaty on geomorphology. So? You are implying an absurd, It doesnt matter what you went to school for.
It takes 2 to Tango, and Im not feeling too Argentinian.
We are done here.

But believing an invertebrate can differenciate its owner from another people is among the stupidest things I have read in a long time.

 

[phoenixxavierre]

I did 3 years of Physics, and I majored in Geography with a speciaty on geomorphology. So? You are implying an absurd, It doesnt matter what you went to school for.
It takes 2 to Tango, and Im not feeling too Argentinian.
We are done here.

But believing an invertebrate can differenciate its owner from another people is among the stupidest things I have read in a long time.

Good for you. I didn't ask though, nor did I have reason to. I didn't assume you're uneducated. Just not thinking. Pat on the back for you, though I should point out that those sciences have little to do with the topic at hand.

CHEMICAL SIGNATURES, can you wrap your brain around that? Are you saying that chemical signatures are all the same? Are you saying that sound waves are all the same? That IS what you're saying IF you say there's no difference between my voice and someone else's or between my molecular "scent" and someone else's. Not everyone has the same "smell".

you can close your mind to possibilities and facts all you want. it doesn't help you on this topic or in life in general. You cannot argue against what I observed, UNLESS you're calling me a liar. It seems that you're just arguing with me to argue with me, otherwise you would've offered up what you thought to be another reasonable explanation for the behavior I described.

I'm absolutely amazed that someone who took 3 years of physics can be so narrow-minded.

And as far as being done, I'll be done when I'm done. Please don't speak FOR me. You aren't my representative. If YOU are done, that's fine by me. Have a nice day.

 

[dannyboypede]

Fran has offered his opinion, you just neglected to read the previous posts. All you are doing is yapping about thinking outside of the box and opening your mind. Outside the box is generally where we start comparing tarantula keeping to alien abduction...and no one wants to go there. To dispute your nonsense, there is a difference between knowing an owner, and preferring a certain vibration over another. As I said in a different post (not that you would know), ownership of other animals is a human ideal. The tarantula has no idea that it is owned by anyone. It doesn't have sense enough to realize that a human is anything other than a threat (why certain tarantulas tolerate humans more than others, i.e. Avics, is a topic for another thread). In a tarantula's world, there is only threat, food, and mate, period.

--Dan

 

[phoenixxavierre]

Fran has offered his opinion, you just neglected to read the previous posts. All you are doing is yapping about thinking outside of the box and opening your mind. Outside the box is generally where we start comparing tarantula keeping to alien abduction...and no one wants to go there. To dispute your nonsense, there is a difference between knowing an owner, and preferring a certain vibration over another. As I said in a different post (not that you would know), ownership of other animals is a human ideal. The tarantula has no idea that it is owned by anyone. It doesn't have sense enough to realize that a human is anything other than a threat (why certain tarantulas tolerate humans more than others, i.e. Avics, is a topic for another thread). In a tarantula's world, there is only threat, food, and mate, period.

--Dan

Ahh, I see we have another assumer/presumer amongst us.

I read every post in the thread, so so much for your assumptions. Thanks for your opinion though.

Thinking outside of the box means thinking creatively. I suppose that if you rule "thinking outside the box" out, then you are ruling out some of the greatest discoveries of mankind, which were acquired by paying attention to one's dreams.

Your opinion that my post is nonsense is noted, along with your close-minded buddies (that would be your reference to "no one")

Now, I would appreciate it if you would point out anywhere where I posted the word "OWNER" as you imply that I did, or even talked of ownership. Perhaps you need to read the posts closer, or else point out to me where I wrote that.

You're killin' me. How someone could be so daft is beyond me.

As far as your last comment, there is more to the animal kingdom than threat/food/mate, FAR more.

 

[dannyboypede]

haven't read through all the posts yet but I have to interject here. Tarantulas are absolutely capable of learning to differentiate between people. I know this from personal experience, and witnessed on repeated occasions.

Sorry, I didn't mean to assume something was fact when you said it.

I did not say that the only things in the animal kingdom are food, threat, and mate. I said, "In a tarantula's world, there is only threat, food, and mate, period."

Admittedly, you never used the word "owner." However, you did say that tarantulas can tell the difference between humans based on sound of voice. I agree that they can differentiate between vibrations/sound of voice. However, this in no way exemplifies intelligence. Their reaction to a vibration falls under a reaction to threat or food. That isn't learning!!!! :wall:

You're killin' me. How someone could be so daft is beyond me.

--Dan

 

[phoenixxavierre]

Sorry, I didn't mean to assume something was fact when you said it.

I did not say that the only things in the animal kingdom are food, threat, and mate. I said, "In a tarantula's world, there is only threat, food, and mate, period."

Admittedly, you never used the word "owner." However, you did say that tarantulas can tell the difference between humans based on sound of voice. I agree that they can differentiate between vibrations/sound of voice. However, this in no way exemplifies intelligence. Their reaction to a vibration falls under a reaction to threat or food. That isn't learning!!!! :wall:

You're killin' me. How someone could be so daft is beyond me.

--Dan

Now you're making the illogical and narrow-minded assumption that I didn't go on AFTER posting that comment to read the remainder of the posts. It drives me nuts when people just assume crap without bothering to ask.

A tarantula is in the animal kingdom. It is a complex biological entity (well, I suppose some may argue that it's not all that complex, however, in my opinion they are). There is surely more to them than threat, food and mate, regardless of how you wanna slice it.

What it DOES suggest is memory, and THAT suggests some degree of intelligence. I'm not the only one who feels this way either. I've spoken with people in the hobby who are excellent taxonomists, and they agree. So this isn't an uneducated idea. What we DON'T know about tarantulas far outweighs what we DO know.

Intelligence is not just observed in animals, it is observed in plants as well. I think that perhaps you are OVER thinking this. Intelligence isn't as limited as what you're thinking it is.

 

[Chris_Skeleton]

Hey guys, yesterday I walked in my room and my rose hair realized it was me and pulled out it's tennis ball to play fetch. It's awesome, it use to think of me as an owner, but now I think we are on a friend level.

It amazes me what people say about tarantulas.

Oh and Phoenix, your psychology major has just about as much to do with tarantulas as what Frans major was.

Anyway, +1 to Fran and dannyboypede.

---------- Post added at 04:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 PM ----------

Intelligence is not just observed in animals, it is observed in plants as well. I think that perhaps you are OVER thinking this. Intelligence isn't as limited as what you're thinking it is.

Lol. Yeah we're the ones OVER thinking alright.

 

[dannyboypede]

Now you're making the illogical and narrow-minded assumption that I didn't go on AFTER posting that comment to read the remainder of the posts. It drives me nuts when people just assume crap without bothering to ask.

A tarantula is in the animal kingdom. It is a complex biological entity (well, I suppose some may argue that it's not all that complex, however, in my opinion they are). There is surely more to them than threat, food and mate, regardless of how you wanna slice it.

What it DOES suggest is memory, and THAT suggests some degree of intelligence. I'm not the only one who feels this way either. I've spoken with people in the hobby who are excellent taxonomists, and they agree. So this isn't an uneducated idea. What we DON'T know about tarantulas far outweighs what we DO know.

Intelligence is not just observed in animals, it is observed in plants as well. I think that perhaps you are OVER thinking this. Intelligence isn't as limited as what you're thinking it is.

Tarantulas are part of the animal kingdom, however, they are not the animal kingdom. What more is there than threat, food, and mate? You have yet to convince me that they have a sliver of intelligence. Simply saying that there is more to them than we think, is not a very convincing argument. Again, what more it there?

--Dan

 

[salsalover]

Now you're making the illogical and narrow-minded assumption that I didn't go on AFTER posting that comment to read the remainder of the posts. It drives me nuts when people just assume crap without bothering to ask.

A tarantula is in the animal kingdom. It is a complex biological entity (well, I suppose some may argue that it's not all that complex, however, in my opinion they are). There is surely more to them than threat, food and mate, regardless of how you wanna slice it.

What it DOES suggest is memory, and THAT suggests some degree of intelligence. I'm not the only one who feels this way either. I've spoken with people in the hobby who are excellent taxonomists, and they agree. So this isn't an uneducated idea. What we DON'T know about tarantulas far outweighs what we DO know.

Intelligence is not just observed in animals, it is observed in plants as well. I think that perhaps you are OVER thinking this. Intelligence isn't as limited as what you're thinking it is.
__________________
The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.
~ H. L. Mencken

You are absolutely correct and the theory you have conveyed is the message i was trying to convey the entire time. I have a feeling we're going to get along just fine . The fact that the tarantula can differentiate someone who handles it regularly from a crowd shows a level of intelligence and it's an innate sense all animals have animals aren't stupid they know who their owner is.

---------- Post added at 05:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------

Tarantulas are part of the animal kingdom, however, they are not the animal kingdom. What more is there than threat, food, and mate? You have yet to convince me that they have a sliver of intelligence. Simply saying that there is more to them than we think, is not a very convincing argument. Again, what more it there?

--Dan

That is the most closed minded statement i've heard any one make in a long time. To say that an animal is incapable of having intelligence simply because it's an animal is "absurd" mainly because no animal has proved to be stupid. In fact if anything being able to differentiate pheromone levels,soundwaves,vibrations...etc is a big feat for a creature that is practically blind not only that but she proved they had intelligence when she explained her personal experience because it proves they have a good memory which is an aspect of intelligence in general.

 

[Fran]

. The fact that the tarantula can differentiate someone who handles it regularly from a crowd shows a level of intelligence and it's an innate sense all animals have animals aren't stupid they know who their owner is.

What fact. Do you know what a fact is?
Please, tell me where did you find that written, point out to me where is the source.

Please lets educate ourselves a bit before posting about a science related debate.

 

[AmbushArachnids]

You are absolutely correct and the theory you have conveyed is the message i was trying to convey the entire time. I have a feeling we're going to get along just fine . The fact that the tarantula can differentiate someone who handles it regularly from a crowd shows a level of intelligence and it's an innate sense all animals have animals aren't stupid they know who their owner is.

---------- Post added at 05:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------

When was this proven with science? Where is the scientific paper from and when was it published? :?

Edit: You should try these out, they are free of charge. . ,

 

[salsalover]

What fact. Do you know what a fact is?
Please, tell me where did you find that written, point out to me where is the source.

Please lets educate ourselves a bit before posting about a science related debate.

Don't think you can treat me like an idiot just because pheonix wouldn't let it fly. I know what a fact is according to connotative and denotative meaning in this case I'm choosing to base my claim off of personal experiences which does directly tie into science int he way that the idea of science derived from a hypothesis in this case pheonix has conveyed that she..or he (i havent looked at their profile yet) has in a way tested a hypothesis regarding this subject matter if you're trying to go into the technical of debate you've picked n argument with the wrong person. There is a such thing as using personal experience to support a claim in a debate because there are different types of evidence in a debate i know for a fact because i've been on a debate team for 3 years and i've actually won debates by using personal experience. Not only that but like pheonix said before you're crazy if you think science can't take place outside a lab we test informal hypothesis everyday and draw conclusions from it and it's part of what makes up our intellect frankly im surprised that you can't be open minded enough or experienced enough in a feild you claim to know inside out unless of course you don't form informal hypothesis daily which....is ridiculous. Not ony that but if we're going into the technicals of debate then this is a debate of vale which means pheonixs' experience has priority over evidence because in a debate of value it's about our conotative definitions and how we would define the word intelligent in this case i define it as incorporating memory and routine and differentiating one individual from another which means in debate terms pheonixs' logic outweighs yours

---------- Post added at 06:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ----------

When was this proven with science? Where is the scientific paper from and when was it published?

this is a debate of value which means evidence isn't permitted unless it is a personal experience which means pheonixxs' experience outweighs she has formed a hypothesis based on this topic and tested it first hand which as far as i'm concerned is more beneficial because we can conclude that there aren't anythird party sources getting involved to manipulate the result that and in this case we define crowd as a series of people so maybe you should read all of the posts before presuming what was said before and trying to jump into a topic

 

[dannyboypede]

You are absolutely correct and the theory you have conveyed is the message i was trying to convey the entire time. I have a feeling we're going to get along just fine . The fact that the tarantula can differentiate someone who handles it regularly from a crowd shows a level of intelligence and it's an innate sense all animals have animals aren't stupid they know who their owner is.

---------- Post added at 05:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------




That is the most closed minded statement i've heard any one make in a long time. To say that an animal is incapable of having intelligence simply because it's an animal is "absurd" mainly because no animal has proved to be stupid. In fact if anything ...etc is a big feat for a creature that is practically blind not only that but she proved they had intelligence when she explained her personal experience because it proves they have a good memory which is an aspect of intelligence in general.

I didn't say it couldn't be intelligent simply because it was an animal. I don't need someone else to put words into my mouth, I am fully capable of that myself...thanks anyways. There is a difference between memory/intelligence and developing tendencies based on surrounding conditions. "Being able to differentiate pheromone levels,soundwaves,vibrations" is instinct. It does not demonstrate intelligence. It is true that they are incredible creatures, but this has nothing to do with mental capacity...because there isn't any. As far as my post being close minded, I really don't see how.

--Dan

 

[Fran]

Don't think you can treat me like an idiot just because pheonix wouldn't let it fly. I know what a fact is according to connotative and denotative meaning in this case I'm choosing to base my claim off of personal experiences which does directly tie into science int he way that the idea of science derived from a hypothesis in this case pheonix has conveyed that she..or he (i havent looked at their profile yet) has in a way tested a hypothesis regarding this subject matter if you're trying to go into the technical of debate you've picked n argument with the wrong person. There is a such thing as using personal experience to support a claim in a debate because there are different types of evidence in a debate i know for a fact because i've been on a debate team for 3 years and i've actually won debates by using personal experience. Not only that but like pheonix said before you're crazy if you think science can't take place outside a lab we test informal hypothesis everyday and draw conclusions from it and it's part of what makes up our intellect frankly im surprised that you can't be open minded enough or experienced enough in a feild you claim to know inside out unless of course you don't form informal hypothesis daily which....is ridiculous. Not ony that but if we're going into the technicals of debate then this is a debate of vale which means pheonixs' experience has priority over evidence because in a debate of value it's about our conotative definitions and how we would define the word intelligent in this case i define it as incorporating memory and routine and differentiating one individual from another which means in debate terms pheonixs' logic outweighs yours

---------- Post added at 06:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ----------




this is a debate of value which means evidence isn't permitted unless it is a personal experience which means pheonixxs' experience outweighs she has formed a hypothesis based on this topic and tested it first hand which as far as i'm concerned is more beneficial because we can conclude that there aren't anythird party sources getting involved to manipulate the result that and in this case we define crowd as a series of people so maybe you should read all of the posts before presuming what was said before and trying to jump into a topic

I just read blah blah blah. Really. Nothing else. No proof , no source, no facts behind the chating.

 

[Lolita]

I just read blah blah blah. Really. Nothing else. No proof , no source, no facts behind the chating.

well it is tarantula chat haha sorry bad joke i'll be good -looks innocent-

 

[Chris_Skeleton]

Don't think you can treat me like an idiot just because pheonix wouldn't let it fly. I know what a fact is according to connotative and denotative meaning in this case I'm choosing to base my claim off of personal experiences which does directly tie into science int he way that the idea of science derived from a hypothesis in this case pheonix has conveyed that she..or he (i havent looked at their profile yet) has in a way tested a hypothesis regarding this subject matter if you're trying to go into the technical of debate you've picked n argument with the wrong person.

I think we have picked an argument with the wrong person.... because I can't understand where your sentences end and others begin. No punctuation, and no capitalization.

 

[dannyboypede]

Don't think you can treat me like an idiot just because pheonix wouldn't let it fly. I know what a fact is according to connotative and denotative meaning in this case I'm choosing to base my claim off of personal experiences which does directly tie into science int he way that the idea of science derived from a hypothesis in this case pheonix has conveyed that she..or he (i havent looked at their profile yet) has in a way tested a hypothesis regarding this subject matter if you're trying to go into the technical of debate you've picked n argument with the wrong person. There is a such thing as using personal experience to support a claim in a debate because there are different types of evidence in a debate i know for a fact because i've been on a debate team for 3 years and i've actually won debates by using personal experience. Not only that but like pheonix said before you're crazy if you think science can't take place outside a lab we test informal hypothesis everyday and draw conclusions from it and it's part of what makes up our intellect frankly im surprised that you can't be open minded enough or experienced enough in a feild you claim to know inside out unless of course you don't form informal hypothesis daily which....is ridiculous. Not ony that but if we're going into the technicals of debate then this is a debate of vale which means pheonixs' experience has priority over evidence because in a debate of value it's about our conotative definitions and how we would define the word intelligent in this case i define it as incorporating memory and routine and differentiating one individual from another which means in debate terms pheonixs' logic outweighs yours

---------- Post added at 06:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ----------




this is a debate of value which means evidence isn't permitted unless it is a personal experience which means pheonixxs' experience outweighs she has formed a hypothesis based on this topic and tested it first hand which as far as i'm concerned is more beneficial because we can conclude that there aren't anythird party sources getting involved to manipulate the result that and in this case we define crowd as a series of people so maybe you should read all of the posts before presuming what was said before and trying to jump into a topic

All I can say is: USE PERIODS

All I got from that was that now you are making us follow rules that denounce the use of scientific data simply because someone came along and offered a silly personal experience that really doesn't prove anything (other than my point).

--Dan

p.s. the thing after the sentence that lets the reader know that the next sentence is coming, is called a period

 

[AmbushArachnids]

this is a debate of value which means evidence isn't permitted unless it is a personal experience which means pheonixxs' experience outweighs she has formed a hypothesis based on this topic and tested it first hand which as far as i'm concerned is more beneficial because we can conclude that there aren't anythird party sources getting involved to manipulate the result that and in this case we define crowd as a series of people so maybe you should read all of the posts before presuming what was said before and trying to jump into a topic

Ok its a debate, he proved nothing. Now i will prove nothing as well and you tell me who is more logical..

I have a 5.5" F H. lividum that gives me anything from a huge threat (stridulation and biting the ground).. To sitting normal stance not moving a muscle. Even when touched with a paint brush she doesnt move. Is she inviting me for play time since she isnt threatening me? NO! IMO Its her instincts telling her not to move so she can avoid a confrontation with a preditior. Its also my opinion her instinct tells her to show preditors how big and scary she is. Eventually when put in a hopeless situation she calms down.(when i am in control of her life while holding her.) Why bite when i might bite back? That is my logic on her behavior. Does that sound so rediculous?

They are built for the wild, not a cage with someone to interact with. They could care less the different chemical signal of a preditor. Anything other than a mate is a threat to her existance!

This whole debate is rediculous to me. How does every other wild and aggressive animal act tward humans? H. lividum is not docile and has no time to "understand how" to survive or interact other than threaten, mate or eat. (as stated so well by Danny) Alot of times its in that order.

 

[billopelma]

I think a lot of the disagreement here is based on nothing but nit picking of terminology, at least I hope so.

While I look at it as rather obvious a T has no concept of the terms 'ownership' or 'who', it also seems obvious that they can correlate a set of sensory parameters and equate/remember a given group or sequence of such with a 'good' or 'bad' outcome ('food' or 'smashed toes'). I further find it likely that a T could correlate a set of those parameters to equate them to the presence of a specific person, they certainly have the sensory 'hardware' necessary to do so. I doubt they perceive this set of correlations into a mental picture of a human but relatively speaking it's easiest for us to look at it this way for purposes of conversation.

I know many claim T's are scientifically proven to be incapable of 'learning' or 'thinking'( doing mazes and such), that they can only be 'conditioned' to exhibit a particular behavior and 'respond' to the particular stimuli. More nit picking, as far as these types of casual discussions are concerned the terms are more or less interchangeable, it's not like this is an academic conference...

I mostly will give someone the benefit of doubt when they say they're T 'knows' them and responds a certain way to them specifically, that they realize it's not 'knowing' in a human sense but 'knowing' relative to how a T would 'know' and that it's just been 'conditioned' to responding to a set of stimuli in the way it's instinct has it wired to do. When some get all ruffled about 'intelligence' applying or not to T's, it's really all about whether the term is being used in a strict scientific definition or as a relative term to place the T somewhere on a scale between a cat and a nematode as far as interpreting stimuli goes.

I see T 'learning/conditioning' all the time, for an easy example many T's are picky about types of food. When I throw in pretty much anything that moves the majority of hungry T's used to getting what they like will give an immediate feeding response, regardless of the type of prey. As soon as they realize it's, say, a type of roach they don't like, they quickly loose interest.
If I keep giving them the undesirables, it doesn't take long before they stop responding. When I then throw in the preferred type of (roach, cricket, worm, whatever), at first I see the same lack of response, but after a small number of times they 'figure out' it's now 'the good stuff' again and go back to the immediate response. After many months/years of this they seem to get better at determining the desirability of what is tossed in on a more or less immediate basis (and act accordingly), rather than the old extremes of 'pounce now, figure out what it is later' or 'ignore it even if it crawls on me'.

I tend to think of this as 'learning', but I guess *technically* it's 'conditioning' and guaranteed someone will jump all over me for using one term but not the other, even though it's pretty clear I mean the same thing either way. So be mindful of how those questions and observations are worded or be ready for the nit pickers...



Bill