spiders have been around probably more or less unchanged for geological ages. This proves that the design works, and works far better than humans who have been around for a few million years at best.

Just because spiders aren't intelligent doesn't make them better or worse than the greatest human genius. it just makes them different.

I think that spiders are pretty much automatons. I don't think they learn, and I don't think they have much intelligence. i do think that they are amazing creatures that interact with their environment in an incredibly complex way. they aren't 'just' automatons, suggesting that they are inferior. They are so far different from us that terms like 'better' or 'worse' are just meaningless.

__________________
Snickers
Snakes - Carpet Pythons1.1 Bredl's Python (Neville/Luna)1.1 Jungle X Carpet Python (Molly/Arthur)0.1 Diamond X Carpet Python (Aurora)
Inverts - Tarantulas0.0.1 B. bohemi - Mexican Fireleg (George)0.0.1 B. emilia - Mexican Red Leg (Ginny)0.1.1 B. smithi - Mexican Red Knee (Fred/?)0.0.1 B. vagans - Mexican Red Rump (Charlie)0.0.1 C. fimbriata - Indian Chevron (Snape)0.0.1 C. cyaneopubescens - GBB (Mosag)0.0.1 E. sp. "blue femur"0.2.0 G. rosea - Chile Rose (Aragog/Junior)0.0.1 L. parahybana - Salmon Pink Birdeater (Hagrid)

read a little about the Portia sp. thatl make your jaw drop in terms of spiders learning, lol
absolutely amazing

Portia (genus) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________

That line resonated with me, most of all.

Would be much like if there was contact of alien life on other planets.

It is likely to be so far removed from human ideals, that we could learn nothing from them, or them from us...

Spiders do learn.

They can show learning in terms of conditioned stimulus (CS) and conditioned behaviours.

A classic example is how orbv weavers change the shape and 'density' of their web design to enhance their catch. They change the area of highest thread density/cm2 according to what portion of the web catches the most prey.

There are also studies which conclude that as orb weavers age, they become more experienced and position their webs better in the shrubbery/hedge etc as to increase their catch. This is a learned behaviour, as it is not random and requires memory of which areas catch fewest prey items.

Based on the mounting evidence, I would suggest arachnids DO learn.

There are also countless other studies in social wasps, potter wasps, parasitoid wasps and countless other insects that show conditioned learning. Conditioned learning is what Pavlov did with his dogs...

I think the problem is that much of the scientific work on learning in insects is slow to filter into the publics awareness. Some know about Portia, but how many knew of orb weavers changing their web conformations?

I do agree that insects are often under-rated in terms of sophistication. I don't believe they are automotons, there is too much evidence of conditioned learning for me to believe that they simply rely on "instinct" - a term which in itself is out of date and being phased out by the scientific community. There's a ton of evidence that shows as insects age, they become more, then less efficient at prey capture. It is thought that learning increases their efficiency, then old age inhibits their fitness (seriously, pseudoscorpions show senility, amongst others).

__________________
Brachypelma albopilosum (Charlotte)
B. Schroederi (slings)
Grammostola sp. "North" Northern gold
G. aurerostriata (slings)
Cyclosternum fasciatum (slings)

Member of the BAS and AAS.

Even humans are no more than biological robots, as it were.

Our brain is the hard drive, and our 'personalities' are merely a composition of instincts, and what has been programmed into our minds.

I've written programs that change behaviour according to what happens on the network. I designed another program that routed parts round a plant, and changed behaviour according to what worked best.

That isn't learning in the same as humans learn. The code is hardwired, and reacts apparently by magic to a few bytes of data in the state vector. I think that spiders are very similar.

Just my opinion

__________________
Snickers
Snakes - Carpet Pythons1.1 Bredl's Python (Neville/Luna)1.1 Jungle X Carpet Python (Molly/Arthur)0.1 Diamond X Carpet Python (Aurora)
Inverts - Tarantulas0.0.1 B. bohemi - Mexican Fireleg (George)0.0.1 B. emilia - Mexican Red Leg (Ginny)0.1.1 B. smithi - Mexican Red Knee (Fred/?)0.0.1 B. vagans - Mexican Red Rump (Charlie)0.0.1 C. fimbriata - Indian Chevron (Snape)0.0.1 C. cyaneopubescens - GBB (Mosag)0.0.1 E. sp. "blue femur"0.2.0 G. rosea - Chile Rose (Aragog/Junior)0.0.1 L. parahybana - Salmon Pink Birdeater (Hagrid)

Agree with that, in bold.

I watched a very good documentry on Portia. Can't remember where though.

It showed one sizing up a mantid and the Portia was fast but I don't know how fast a mantids reaction speed is in terms of a league table but Portia just was not fast enough.

Made me happy, I'm a mantid man

__________________

Tbh, I am not knowledgable enough in the animal behaviour/phsychology stuff to discuss what is true learning and what isnt. Not all human behaviour is that different from conditioned reflexes to repeated stimuli, which is often how insects "learn".

I personally do not believe that all learning is hardwired, otherwise you could say the same about many human actions that are "hardwired" yet considered learned. To me, hardwired responses would be similar to reflexes, whereas learned behaviours are different and not as instantaneous as reflexes because there is variation in them. No two spiders build webs exactly the same etc etc. If it was hardwired, then I doubt they would vary how they construct webbing at all, yet they do.

__________________
Brachypelma albopilosum (Charlotte)
B. Schroederi (slings)
Grammostola sp. "North" Northern gold
G. aurerostriata (slings)
Cyclosternum fasciatum (slings)

Member of the BAS and AAS.

I only have one burrowing T, an N. Chromatus sling. Its still very small but its burrowing is impressive none the less.
It being so small and still living in a plastic drinks cup means that although I never see it in action, I can see what its been up to!
First it digs a burrow down, then it makes a cavern at the bottom of the tunnel which stretches right across the bottom of the drinks cup, then once excavation of the cavern is complete, it makes a second entrance to its cavern at the opposite side from the first one.

(I accidentally destroyed it excavation efforts a wee while back, and it did the exact same thing from scratch!)

Of course, I have no idea if it will continue to make 2 entrances once its bigger and in a bigger home. I'll just have to wait and see! (actually, I'm quite excited about rehousing this guy and finding out!)

Also, with regards T behaviour.
Thrixopelma Pruriens landscaping
I posted about this on the pics forum but I have an adult female T. Pruriens. I have had her for 9years and she was as good as adult when i got her, so she is not young!
In the entire time I have had her she has NEVER terraformed her house.
That is until I cleaned her out about a month or 2 ago. I replaced the substrate but I used the same substrate I always have.
She has started doing some serious landscaping, she's almost completely covered her flower pot hide with substrate and webbed it all into place, and has dragged a lot of subsrate from the front and back of her home to surround her plant pot.

I know this doesn't illustrate any sort of ability to learn but it is strange that after at least 9yrs she has suddenly decided its time to redecorate!

__________________
Beasties1.0 Pony - Seamus1.0 BCI - Alcatraz0.1 Brachypelma Smithi - Muse0.1.2 Thrixopelma Pruriens - Belle, T1 and T30.0.2 Brachypelma Emilia - B1 and B20.0.1 Nhandu Chromatus - Digger0.0.1 Avicularia sp "Peru Purple" - Bramble0.0.10 Peruphasma Schultei0.0.3 Pandinus Imperator
6607.