Spiders are intelligent

Technically, I could. Sure, I would have to use scuba equipment, but still and all, I could do it.Besides. You're mucking up Taz's example.A proper analogy would be: Humans can change the way in which they find food. Spiders can't.

Wow. Way to miss the point by a mile.Humans can change their way of finding food right now. In an instant.
Spiders cannot.Instinct is a fixed pattern of behavior that is inherited. Clearly, this is true of spiders.

Horse piddle.Biology evolves.Behavior does not. You've got my definition of instinct.Rebuttal?

I was going for brevity.

Yes. There is.Unless, of course, you think that Homo sapiens' behavior is...a) automatic
b) irresistible
c) must be triggered by some event in the environment
d) occurs in every member of the species
e) unmodifiable
f) governs behavior for which the organism needs no trainingIs that your definition of intelligence?

At the level of genus and family, spider behavior is rigid wrt to web forms. All members of Argiodae build orbwebs (no exceptions), all members of Lycosidae carry the cocoon attached to their spinnerets, etc.Can you name a group of humans who, thru instinct, perform the same behavior exactly the same way (no exceptions) much as the spider does?In fact, initially, spiders were divided into taxonomic categories based on web building behavior.Spiders' behavior is rigid wrt to the way in which the female carries the cocoon, too.If these aren't specific enough for you, how about their startle response instinct? That is not a definition of intelligence. It is a definition of instinct. So it doesn't make any sense for me to clarify (c).Speaking of definitions, you have yet to provide a definition of intelligence.Please do so. One that is rigorous enough to stand up to scientific scrutiny.Cites wouldn't hurt. Instinct needs no training.That's a fact.Intelligence, on the other hand, oftentimes does.Of course, we can clear this matter up once you provide your definition of intelligence. Again. This isn't a definition of intelligence. It is a definition of instinct. Which is why I chose to ask you:Is this "intelligence"?To answer your question. Automatic: Functioning in a predefined manner with a minimum of reprogrammability.So the answer is: No. Actually, you're wrong.Both language and laughter/smiling are thought to be instinctual, as they are automatic.And before you argue that language must be taught, you don't want to open that can of worms. Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct is just a google away! I will answer this question after you've provided your definition of intelligence.

I know, Bluegenes. Which is why I said "group" of humans. Absolutely. Those without genetic defect, that is (handwalkers & cerebellar ataxia).

Wrong. In your OP you said: Therefore the burden is on YOU to define intelligence. That's the way it works around here. The person who introduces the idea has to explain the idea.Define intelligence.
Define instinct.Quit stalling. Spiders do not build identical webs, don't be ridiculous.Orb weaving spiders build orbs, etc. Quit putting words in my mouth. I never said "Spiders build exact replicas." Absolutely:Instinct: inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuliIntelligence: the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experienceNote: neither of these definitions are scientific. Both are from a dictionary. No. These parameters are used in the scientific literature. According to Merriam Webster, you are way off base.Intrinsic:1 a: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing (the intrinsic worth of a gem) (the intrinsic brightness of a star)b: being or relating to a semiconductor in which the concentration of charge carriers is characteristic of the material itself instead of the content of any impurities it contains2 a: originating or due to causes within a body, organ, or part (an intrinsic metabolic disease)b: originating and included wholly within an organ or part (intrinsic muscles) As NWR mentioned earlier, you need to define your terms. Again. Since you introduced the idea, the burden is on YOU to define your terms. Typical creo. Ignore half the definition. Smiling is found in all human cultures. Smiling is found in our close cousins (chimps/gorillas/baboons/etc.)Smiling is instinctual. Again. Protocol demands that you define the term intelligence.

I would disagree.Spiders cannot be trained to spin a different sort of web.Humans can be trained to do nearly everything differently. Even those traits that can be said to be instinctual can be ignored (as Taz pointed out).A case could be made that there are traits that cannot be altered; the inborn capacity for language, for example.A child exposed to language picks up language. There isn't much of anything you can do prevent that. Aside from complete isolation (Genie, etc.).

Define intelligence.
Define instinct.

In a casual sense, any repeated behavior can be called instinct.In a casual sense, any behavior for which there is a strong innate component can be called instinct.Learning and adaptability are instincts in that limited use of the term.In fact, at the beginning of the 20th century, the scientific literature had references to over 4000 human instincts.If, however, one uses the definition I provided earlier: I wouldn't draw the line that hard and fast. I would say that mothering, territoriality, eating, mating, learning, and adaptability are not human instincts since they don't meet the criteria. But that some traits (language) do fit the criteria. Complexity doesn't explain the phenomenon, tho.And, since we are about 5 years away from a theory of the mind, there isn't an explanation to be had at present. That's a convenient way of looking at things, but I disagree.As would most neurobiologists. There is a physical difference in the mechanisms. The systems are not the same. Again. Neuroscience begs to differ.Just look at the title of this paper:The Parieto-Frontal Integration Theory (P-FIT) of intelligence: Converging neuroimaging evidence
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (2007), 30:166-167If intelligence can be shown to inhabit an area of the brain that spiders just don't have, how can spiders be intelligent?

Sin, are you going to become one of "those"?Please answer my questions:Define intelligence.
Define instinct.

Blue, you and I both know that common definitions, in general, are no good for a scientific debate. This is one of the reasons I am asking Sin to define his terms.My definitions of intelligence, tho more restrictive than yours, is no where near rigorous enough for the purposes of this debate.When Sin finally gets around to providing his definitions, I will address the topic further. If spiders did not learn from experience, evolution would not occur. And I did not suggest that spiders don't learn.So. Spiders learn from experience. But. As Jar has pointed out, when a hardwired instinct is challenged (by lack of gravity), they do not adapt. They carry out their program. Then you need to tell me what you mean by system.Presumably a neurobiological system, yes?So. What is it? How does this show intelligence?It sounds like you're ringing the "all webs are not identical" bell.Again. I have not said that all webs are identical.Much as the language instinct allows any child to learn any language, the web instinct allows any spider to repair any damage. Forgive me, Blue, but your argument is beginning to sound like those cranks who claim to have discovered a new law in physics thru sheer ignorance of the processes involved.Let's start by defining "the system". If you can find some supporting evidence that there is a shared neurobiological structure, then we can begin to discuss this issue.You do realize, of course, that you are suggesting that every animal on this planet, vertebrate and invertebrate, shares a common neurobiological system?

I have already offered a definition of instinct.I will respond to your definition of intelligence once you've posted it. Not gonna happen.I await your definitions.

Wrong.Adjudication is not the role of the moderators here.You have seen fit to avoid defining the ideas you introduced. What debate can be had if one refuses to address a foundational issue?It's not surprising that you've chosen to avoid a definition, however. Happens all the time on this board.Turn tail and run, Sin. It's a well-established creo tradition here at EvC.