How do Spiders Learn to Spin Webs?

[demwing]

I understand that weaving silk is a biological function for the spider, maybe comparable to growing hair, but spinning a web takes a bit of engineering. Some choices have to be made on whether a line is lateral, orbital, sticky, not sticky, etc. Yet spiders do not need to be taught this skill, they act on instinct.

Many animals act on instinct. Birds build nests, newly hatched sea turtles run toward the ocean, bees build well engineered hives, and so on. Perhaps all animal behavior is (or is triggered by) instinct.

So what is this power called "instinct"? Where is it located? What is it's source? Is it biological? Do we come pre-programmed, like some computer purchased with a version of the operating system already installed? It it related to intelligence at all?

Maybe spiders that spin webs--or use thread as a tool--are the smarter spiders, and maybe spiders that do not spin are the dull, dim relatives at the low end of the DNA ladder?

If instinct is not linked to intelligence, what is it? Merriam-Webster.com tells us that instinct is "behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level."

Fire has behavior...and since there's no possibility that fire is conscious, can it be said that the behavior of fire is instinctive? What about weather patterns? What about the big-bang contraction and expansion of the Universe?

No? Then what is it about the behavior of systems that is different then then reflexive or instinctive behavior of life forms? Again, the dictionary tells us it consciousness. If learned behavior requires consciousness, what then creates consciousness? Life?

We really don't know what life is, or consciousness. Perhaps life is just a state of existence for an organic system that has reached a certain level of complexity. Perhaps consciousness is the act of such a system identifying itself as such as system.

We can't point to a spot in space where consciousness is (or is not), even though we recognize that consciousness is a real thing, and exists as a prerequisite for non-instinctive behavior, and though we can't point to it, touch it, or even measure it, we accept consciousness as self evident -- we think, therefore we are.

That doesn't mean we start a cult around the power of instinct, or open a worship hall, put on robes, get a special haircut, and start passing the collection plate.

It also doesn't mean that "God" taught spiders how to spin webs.

It means that if life can be reduced to "the behaviors of a complex system" then we might want to ask whether the most complex system we know of - the Universe - is alive, and is aware of itself. If life and consciousness happened on a small scale, it would not be terribly surprising to find that it happened on a large scale as well.

If the Universe is alive, and conscious, does it also possess intelligence? If not intelligence, does the Universe possess instinct?

Universal instinct, or Universal intelligence. Either sounds like a suitable explanation for what some people have called God.

[PoliticAverse]

1. I thought they just watch videos on the World Wide Web... n/t

[Skittles]

2. LOL

[demwing]

4. funny

Some get baked first.

[cbayer]

5. That's where I have learned to do just about everything.

[cbayer]

3. This sounds quite Jungian.

Instinct probably comes from the deepest and most primitive parts of our brains.

Have you heard of the book, The Swarm. Excellent read that speaks to this to some extent, particularly in regard to the seas having some kind of shared consciousness.

Anyway, you raise some really interesting questions.

[mike_c]

6. instinct is genetically hardwired behavior....

That's a bit simplistic, but it's a good beginning definition.

All animal behavior is to some degree under genetic control, some of it under single gene direct control, much of it epigenetic and under multi-gene and gene complex control, and the rest under indirect genetic control via the neuro-pathways, connections, signal pattern generators, membrane receptors, response thresholds, and so on that are ultimately under genetic and developmental control. When we speak about the "plasticity" of behavior, completely hardwired behaviors selected by natural selection occupy the "instinct" end of that continuum, and completely learned behaviors requiring prior experience are at the other end. Most real behaviors fall somewhere in between, with both instinctual and learned components.

Most arthropod behaviors are closer to the hardwired, instinctive end of the plasticity continuum. That makes sense when you consider that arthropods are small, have short lives, and live in a dangerous world. They don't have much time to safely acquire the experiences needed for learning to control highly plastic behaviors (for the most part, of course), and learning how to respond when threatened or how to make a web, and so on, is at least as likely to end fatally (or at a reproductive dead end) as it is to provide useful experience, so the correct behaviors, selected over evolutionary time and hardwired, are encoded during development rather than acquired by experience.

[gopiscrap]

7. where else but at spider school

[rug]

8. Never mind that, how did they learn to eat like that?

Nearly all spiders subdue their prey by injecting venom through their fangs, which operate much like a pair of hypodermic needles. Besides the paralytic action of the venom compounds, the spider regurgitates digestive fluids onto the prey to digest it, working more or less like a meat tenderizer. Once the prey begins to liquefy, the spider uses its jaws and pedipalps to further masticate its meal. The “meat ball” is then slowly imbibed by the mouthparts, taken in mostly in liquid form. Spiders in the obscure family Uloboridae do not possess venom glands, but the rest of the feeding process remains the same. Prey is subdued by tightly wrapping it in silk.

http://www.spiders.us/faq/how-do-spiders-eat/

Liqufied insect meatball.

[silverweb]

9. I read this quote one time.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Can't remember the source, but it was in a book of fiction and it just stayed with me: "God is the Universe becoming aware of Itself."

By extension, as life evolves and as we evolve, so does the Universe, and we are all part of a continuous feedback loop. Maybe it's true and maybe it isn't, but I find the concept intriguing and strangely appealing.

[pokerfan]

13. It's what hydrogen atoms do...

"These are some of the things that hydrogen atoms do given fifteen billion years of cosmic evolution. It has the sound of epic myth, but it is simply a description of the evolution of the cosmos as revealed by science in our time. And we, we who embody the local eyes and ears and thoughts and feelings of the cosmos, we have begun at least to wonder about our origins -- star stuff contemplating the stars, organized collections of ten billion billion billion atoms, contemplating the evolution of nature, tracing that long path by which it arrived at consciousness here on the planet earth, and perhaps throughout the cosmos."

"Our loyalties are to the species and to the planet. We speak for earth. Our obligation to survive and flourish is owed not just to ourselves but also to that cosmos ancient and vast from which we spring!"

[silverweb]

15. Beautiful.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]From Carl Sagan, of course.

Thank you for posting that.

[demwing]

16. thanks for the quote!

I was thinking of this one:

[darkangel218]

21. One of the physicians i work with looks just Carl Sagan, except he has shoulder lenght hair.

He's a trip!

[Jim__]

10. "... if life can be reduced to 'the behaviors of a complex system' ..."

We really don't know what life is, or consciousness. Perhaps life is just a state of existence for an organic system that has reached a certain level of complexity. Perhaps consciousness is the act of such a system identifying itself as such as system.

...

It means that if life can be reduced to "the behaviors of a complex system" then we might want to ask whether the most complex system we know of - the Universe - is alive, and is aware of itself. If life and consciousness happened on a small scale, it would not be terribly surprising to find that it happened on a large scale as well.

If the Universe is alive, and conscious, does it also possess intelligence? If not intelligence, does the Universe possess instinct?

I agree with the first sentence in the excerpt: We really don't know what life is, or consciousness. But, given that, I really don't see anything in your post that justifies our accepting that life can be reduced to "the behaviors of a complex system" . I realize that this assertion is made as a conditional statement in your post. But, given that we really don't know what life is and we really don't know that life can be reduced to "the behaviors of a complex system", it seems a bit premature even to be asking the question of whether or not the universe is alive. Before we get to that question, I think we want to really know what life is.

[okasha]

11. Grandmother Spider teaches them,

of course.

[edhopper]

12. We don't have a complete answer

so it must be God.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[demwing]

14. Either you missed the money line "It also doesn't mean that "God" taught spiders how to spin webs."

Or you missed the whole point...OR you're just being snide.

Yeah, that's the ticket

[edhopper]

17. Being snide

because for all your verbiage, you are still making a case of God of the gaps.
And if you have any evidence of a Universal consciousness, beyond you limited understanding of evolution and animal behavior, then it is just metaphysical fun time. We might as well discuss if Jesus could beat Superman.

Sorry for being snide, but your supposition is mere imagination with no basis.

[Goblinmonger]

24. Well, first of all you have crossing universe problems with your scenario.

I mean an argument of whether Superman could beat Thor is damn near impossible because of the Marvel/DC crossover (no way Superman beats Thor, btw). So no we have to have a much more difficult cross over of DC/Bible. That being said, Superman kicks Jesus' ass. Though Jesus would come back a la Deadpool from the death Superman would put on him.

Or, wait was that not the discussion you expected?

[edhopper]

35. as interesting as most

Theological discussions.

[Goblinmonger]

36. No kidding

I had the Superman vs Thor discussion with a fellow English teach about a week ago. Though as I think about it, Jesus would probably be more likely to be able to pick up Thor's hammer than Superman.

[edhopper]

37. as far as superpowers go

Raising the dead and resurecting are fine. But water into wine and loaves and fishes won't take you far in a fight.

[DrewFlorida]

18. I would guess the best way to learn web spinning techniques would be to watch a priest.

[demwing]

19. now that's a sharp answer

Not thoughtful, but extremely pointed

[darkangel218]

20. IMHO, yes, we do come just preprogrammed computers.

The animals at least do. Human babies on the other hand are completely helpless, and 0 chance of survival without help.

My question would be, why do animals come preprogrammed and human babies don't?

[okasha]

25. Hate to break this to you, but humans are animals,

which means you're one yourself. Unless you identify as a plant or protist, of course.

[darkangel218]

26. I was refering to all the other animals aside from the human species.

gawd..

[okasha]

27. You're still wrong.

Mammals, birds and even simpler forms have not only been proven to learn behavior but have shown clear evidence of problem-solving. Behrnd's experiments with ravens come to mind.

On the other hand, some humans never learn.

[darkangel218]

28. So how am i wrong?

I said human babies are born completely helpless. In what form or fashion is my statement wrong??

[okasha]

29. You are wrong in your statement that

non-human animals are simply "pre-programmed computers." That assertion necessarily implies that non-human animals do not learn new behaviors.

If you're not familiar with Behrnd's work with ravens, maybe you're familiar with domestic cats. Cats kill other animals by instinct. Young cats, though, must learn the connection between "prey" and "food." That's why feline mothers (and fox fathers, btw) bring live prey to their young. So they can learn something for which they're not "pre-programmed."

[darkangel218]

30. Preprogrammed instincts dont exclude new behavior learning!!!

where did you get that from??

[okasha]

34. From your post #20.

If that's not what you meant, perhaps you should rephrase.

[darkangel218]

31. You can take a kitten who was bottle fed and grew up only with humans. That cat will hund down mice

and birds and any other prey just like a cat who grew up with her mother. It all comes down to instinct Genetically imprinted.

[okasha]

32. I just said that.

It's the hunting part that's instinctive. It's eating what the cat hunts that's learned.

[Bay Boy]

33. Babies come with pre-programmed instints...

...sucking for one. Startle reflex is another that I believe they are born with.

[WovenGems]

22. Life = Biological Machine

Foods converted to energy and waste expelled. What's life ain't hard to define at all. Fire is a chemical reaction, not life.

[demwing]

23. "What's life ain't hard to define at all" -- that's not a consensus opinion

Carl Sagan:

"despite the enormous fund of information that each of these biological specialties has provided, it is a remarkable fact that no general agreement exists on what it is that is being studied. There is no generally accepted definition of life."
http://www.aim.univ-paris7.fr/enseig/exobiologie_PDF/Biblio/Sagan%20Definitions%20of%20life.pdf

Check this video:
A discussion with Richard Dawkins, J. Craig Venter, Nobel laureates Sidney Altman and Leland Hartwell, Chris McKay, Paul Davies, Lawrence Krauss, and The Science Network's Roger Bingham