the way i understand it, mantids recognize conspecifics and potential mates using a variety of stimulus, such as visual clues, pheromones etc. i don't know enough about biology/invertebrates/mantids to know exactly what all stimuli these are. however, i know this behaviour is not learnt. unless you are trying to claim mantids learn to recognise conspecifics, then i think this is just a case of us having different understandings of these various terms.
Maybe a little smarter than you think!
- Thread starter hibiscusmile
- Start date
Help Support Mantidforum:
idolomantis
Well-known member
Last edited by a moderator:
ExoticOddities
Well-known member
Okay, speaking of understanding terms Mr. Blue, I think it is important to go back to the beginning at this point. I originally said, "It is entirely possible that mantids likewise have rudimentary powers of recognition," to which you responded by saying, "this is instinct, not cognition or intelligence."
Notice I said nothing of "intelligence" at all in my post, especially in terms of at the human level; I merely spoke of rudimentary powers of recognition. And in your first post, you denied even a mantid's ability to have "cognition" also in the same breath that you denied their having intelligence (which I never asserted).
And yet now, in your second post, you just said, "the way i understand it, mantids recognize conspecifics and potential mates ..."
Speaking of recognition Mr. Blue, do you recognize the fact you just used the same word I did in regards to mantids, which word is "recognize"? Now, you went on to explain how this "recognition" mantids use is comprised of sight, pheromones, etc. ... but my question back to you is, What animal doesn't use "sight," "smell," and "sounds" to assist them in their own recognition? And that includes the human animal. For example, please explain to me how you yourself would "recognize" your own wife, except by using sight, smell, and/or sounds?
The simple fact of the matter is mantids in fact do have "rudimentary powers of recognition," exactly as I said they did, and exactly as you just admitted to in your second post (even though you unfortunately didn't "recognize" that what you just said contradicted your first post, while supporting my own original one).
Jack
.
oh dear. this is my last post in this thread.
i was not responding to that. if you go to my post, you can see i was responding to the sentence "Same as they are able to recognize a member of its own kind, and of the opposite sex, in order to reproduce and survive as a species." that is the sentence i quoted, that is the sentence i was responding to.
i did not deny a mantids ability to have cognition or intelligence, i was saying recognising members of the oppostie sex and breeding were not examples of cognition or intelligence.
to recognize something is different then to learn something. as for your example about the wife... my wife was not born my wife. i was not born with a wife. i'm struggling to even find anything to say about your analogy, as irrelevant as it is.
so now it's a fact? ok well i guess i cant argue against facts.
I have not seen any facts whatsoever yet.
However, using the term "power of recognition" isn't proper unless you define it for mantids. Comparing mantids with vertebrates isn't the right way to analyze the problem.
In general, people should avoid to apply their anthropocentric viewpoint to other animals. Only because we think we know what we would do or perceive doesn't mean that the said animal species will act like or perceive things like we do. In fact, in almost all cases they don't.
This is called habituation, and it hasn't much to do with cognitive learning.
This all has nothing to do with mantids, as mantids lack the ability of recognizing persons.
A mantid is able to assess the direction where food is more abundant than at the actual position, and to switch that position or even foraging tactics due tu hunger level. At least some species are able to differentiate between different prey types and adapt the capturing technique to the respective prey.
However, using the term "power of recognition" isn't proper unless you define it for mantids. Comparing mantids with vertebrates isn't the right way to analyze the problem.
In general, people should avoid to apply their anthropocentric viewpoint to other animals. Only because we think we know what we would do or perceive doesn't mean that the said animal species will act like or perceive things like we do. In fact, in almost all cases they don't.
ExoticOddities
Well-known member
Mr Blue said,
"oh dear. this is my last post in this thread."
As you wish.
Mr Blue said,
"i was not responding to that. if you go to my post, you can see i was responding to the sentence "Same as they are able to recognize a member of its own kind, and of the opposite sex, in order to reproduce and survive as a species." that is the sentence i quoted, that is the sentence i was responding to."
But it is still a form or recognition. You at first denied it was a form of recognition, and then you said, "mantids recognize conspecifics and potential mates" ... which asserts what I said to begin with.
Mr Blue said,
"i did not deny a mantids ability to have cognition or intelligence, i was saying recognising members of the oppostie sex and breeding were not examples of cognition or intelligence."
Then you were arguing with yourself, because I did not say either of these things. Show me where in my first post that I asserted the "intelligence" or "cognition" of mantids. I said they had rudimentary powers of recognition. Only you have used the term "intelligence" and "cognition" here, which means you are arguing with yourself.
Mr Blue said,
"to recognize something is different then to learn something. as for your example about the wife... my wife was not born my wife. i was not born with a wife. i'm struggling to even find anything to say about your analogy, as irrelevant as it is."
You sure do like to argue with yourself, don't you? Show me where I used the word "learn." heck, for that matter a mantis wasn't born with its mate either, so I still don't see what your point is. A mantis is able to recognize the difference between food and a threat, between a twig and a member of its own species, and between the sexuality of individuals within its species. I did not say that this consituted "intelligence" or "learning" anywhere in any post I made. So what you are doing is arguing with phantoms or ghosts here, as nowhere have I made these statements. Once again, for the slow, what I said was, "It is entirely possible that mantids likewise have rudimentary powers of recognition."
Mr Blue said,
"so now it's a fact? ok well i guess i cant argue against facts."
Well, what you seem to be able to do is argue against statements that were never made in the first place :blink:
I have seen street people argue like this with buildings too ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Christian said,
"I have not seen any facts whatsoever yet."
Perhaps we should apply the term "recognize" to you then, in the sense maybe you don't have the power to recognize the facts here. Are you saying that it isn't a fact that mantids are able to recognize the difference between what to eat and what not to eat? Or to recognize the difference between members of their own species from other insects? Are these not facts?
Christian said,
"This is called habituation, and it hasn't much to do with cognitive learning."
Well, whatever label you want to use means nothing to me. The fact is, behavior modification based on observation is a rudimentary form of recognition, as I said.
Christian said,
"This all has nothing to do with mantids, as mantids lack the ability of recognizing persons."
Right, it had to do with king cobras, as I said. I do agree that mantids can't recognize their human owners, so perhaps it wasn't an exact analogy. I wasn't trying to suggest mantids and cobras are exactly as intelligent as one another. In the same way, if I say "My dog loves me," I am not trying to imply that the dog understands the intricasies of love at the same level as a poet either. I am merely speaking loosely of a basic affection.
Christian said,
"A mantid is able to assess the direction where food is more abundant than at the actual position, and to switch that position or even foraging tactics due tu hunger level. At least some species are able to differentiate between different prey types and adapt the capturing technique to the respective prey."
Well, and everything you just said are facts that prove mantids have a rudimentary ability to recognitize certain things as they apply to their survival, and that they make adjustments in their behavior based on these observations. In fact, you use the word "assess" in your description, which implies a greater degree of reasoning than does the word "recognize." What you are doing here, basically, is parroting the thrust of what I was saying back in the beginning, but you are just trying to re-word it. The funny thing is, the word "assess" you yourself just used here implies more "intelligence" than the word I used
Christian said,
"However, using the term "power of recognition" isn't proper unless you define it for mantids. Comparing mantids with vertebrates isn't the right way to analyze the problem."
Well, misquoting me isn't proper either. I said, "rudimentary powers of recognition." And I did define it for mantids. I do agree on the king cobra analogy, but I used this analogy more to show how "lower" life forms have rudimentary powers of recognition, in general, than I was trying to suggest mantids and cobras were 100% identical in their mental make-up. For that matter, just because I said king cobras could "recognize" their human owners from strangers was not to suggest they are identically-intelligent as people are either. How about trying to just relax and see the analogy for what it is, rather than to worry if the two species being compared are 100% identical?
I guess if I say, "My dog is happy," next you are going to go into a diatribe to where I have implied the absolute equality of canid sentience and man's?
Christian said,
"In general, people should avoid to apply their anthropocentric viewpoint to other animals. Only because we think we know what we would do or perceive doesn't mean that the said animal species will act like or perceive things like we do. In fact, in almost all cases they don't."
In general, people should avoid digressing into pointless discussions about ideas that were never stated or implied to begin with. Further, they should really try to avoid the mire of hypocricy when they go on to imply the very things that they originally sought to refute.
The simple truth is at no point did I try to humanize mantids nor assert anything about their intelligence. You and your buddy sure seem to like to build your own straw men to knock down, and argue points that were never made at any time, only to then go on and basically just repeat what I said in the beginning :lol:
.
"oh dear. this is my last post in this thread."
As you wish.
Mr Blue said,
"i was not responding to that. if you go to my post, you can see i was responding to the sentence "Same as they are able to recognize a member of its own kind, and of the opposite sex, in order to reproduce and survive as a species." that is the sentence i quoted, that is the sentence i was responding to."
But it is still a form or recognition. You at first denied it was a form of recognition, and then you said, "mantids recognize conspecifics and potential mates" ... which asserts what I said to begin with.
Mr Blue said,
"i did not deny a mantids ability to have cognition or intelligence, i was saying recognising members of the oppostie sex and breeding were not examples of cognition or intelligence."
Then you were arguing with yourself, because I did not say either of these things. Show me where in my first post that I asserted the "intelligence" or "cognition" of mantids. I said they had rudimentary powers of recognition. Only you have used the term "intelligence" and "cognition" here, which means you are arguing with yourself.
Mr Blue said,
"to recognize something is different then to learn something. as for your example about the wife... my wife was not born my wife. i was not born with a wife. i'm struggling to even find anything to say about your analogy, as irrelevant as it is."
You sure do like to argue with yourself, don't you? Show me where I used the word "learn." heck, for that matter a mantis wasn't born with its mate either, so I still don't see what your point is. A mantis is able to recognize the difference between food and a threat, between a twig and a member of its own species, and between the sexuality of individuals within its species. I did not say that this consituted "intelligence" or "learning" anywhere in any post I made. So what you are doing is arguing with phantoms or ghosts here, as nowhere have I made these statements. Once again, for the slow, what I said was, "It is entirely possible that mantids likewise have rudimentary powers of recognition."
Mr Blue said,
"so now it's a fact? ok well i guess i cant argue against facts."
Well, what you seem to be able to do is argue against statements that were never made in the first place :blink:
I have seen street people argue like this with buildings too ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Christian said,
"I have not seen any facts whatsoever yet."
Perhaps we should apply the term "recognize" to you then, in the sense maybe you don't have the power to recognize the facts here. Are you saying that it isn't a fact that mantids are able to recognize the difference between what to eat and what not to eat? Or to recognize the difference between members of their own species from other insects? Are these not facts?
Christian said,
"This is called habituation, and it hasn't much to do with cognitive learning."
Well, whatever label you want to use means nothing to me. The fact is, behavior modification based on observation is a rudimentary form of recognition, as I said.
Christian said,
"This all has nothing to do with mantids, as mantids lack the ability of recognizing persons."
Right, it had to do with king cobras, as I said. I do agree that mantids can't recognize their human owners, so perhaps it wasn't an exact analogy. I wasn't trying to suggest mantids and cobras are exactly as intelligent as one another. In the same way, if I say "My dog loves me," I am not trying to imply that the dog understands the intricasies of love at the same level as a poet either. I am merely speaking loosely of a basic affection.
Christian said,
"A mantid is able to assess the direction where food is more abundant than at the actual position, and to switch that position or even foraging tactics due tu hunger level. At least some species are able to differentiate between different prey types and adapt the capturing technique to the respective prey."
Well, and everything you just said are facts that prove mantids have a rudimentary ability to recognitize certain things as they apply to their survival, and that they make adjustments in their behavior based on these observations. In fact, you use the word "assess" in your description, which implies a greater degree of reasoning than does the word "recognize." What you are doing here, basically, is parroting the thrust of what I was saying back in the beginning, but you are just trying to re-word it. The funny thing is, the word "assess" you yourself just used here implies more "intelligence" than the word I used
Christian said,
"However, using the term "power of recognition" isn't proper unless you define it for mantids. Comparing mantids with vertebrates isn't the right way to analyze the problem."
Well, misquoting me isn't proper either. I said, "rudimentary powers of recognition." And I did define it for mantids. I do agree on the king cobra analogy, but I used this analogy more to show how "lower" life forms have rudimentary powers of recognition, in general, than I was trying to suggest mantids and cobras were 100% identical in their mental make-up. For that matter, just because I said king cobras could "recognize" their human owners from strangers was not to suggest they are identically-intelligent as people are either. How about trying to just relax and see the analogy for what it is, rather than to worry if the two species being compared are 100% identical?
I guess if I say, "My dog is happy," next you are going to go into a diatribe to where I have implied the absolute equality of canid sentience and man's?
Christian said,
"In general, people should avoid to apply their anthropocentric viewpoint to other animals. Only because we think we know what we would do or perceive doesn't mean that the said animal species will act like or perceive things like we do. In fact, in almost all cases they don't."
In general, people should avoid digressing into pointless discussions about ideas that were never stated or implied to begin with. Further, they should really try to avoid the mire of hypocricy when they go on to imply the very things that they originally sought to refute.
The simple truth is at no point did I try to humanize mantids nor assert anything about their intelligence. You and your buddy sure seem to like to build your own straw men to knock down, and argue points that were never made at any time, only to then go on and basically just repeat what I said in the beginning :lol:
.
Last edited by a moderator:
my oh my, where should i start?
Firstly, what do the "powers of rudimentary recognition" have anything to do with the original topic, which was asking whether there was a possibility that mantids have the potential to exercise "intelligence" or slightly more complicated cognitive processes beyond instincts (which is essentially to survive and reproduce).
You keep constantly arguing that the powers of rudimentary recognition imply some sort of intelligence, but such simple cognitive proccesses (or in your term, "powers of rudimentary recognition") have very little to do with conscious thoughts. Insincts do involve cognition but only few animals are capable of conscious thoughts or complex problem solving behaviour (and the only invertabrates which are capable of that are some species of Cephalopods). Instinct or "powers of rudimentary recognition" is derived via a bottom-up control, governed by selfish genes' need to persist in the population and spread. Such instinctive behaviour or rudimentary recognition is driven by genes, not intelligence.
The fact that you use the term "rudimentary" contradicts intelligence, which implies the ability to deal with complex cognition and information proccessing such as conscious thoughts or recognising human owners.
""This is called habituation, and it hasn't much to do with cognitive learning."Well, whatever label you want to use means nothing to me. The fact is, behavior modification based on observation is a rudimentary form of recognition, as I said."
I am not going to go into the ignorance of "recognising" habituation as a form of "rudimentary recognition"; dismissing many great scientific work done by neurobiologists/psychologists . Habituation is not driven by "rudimentary powers of recognition" but by neuropathways, and this is well proven in seaslugs. If you have any basic knowledge of neurobiology, habituation is a result of over excitation of receptor neurons due to the high levels of stimuli, which desensitises the receptors to specific stimuli; acting as an information filter. How is this related to inteligence?
I have provided the scientific facts, not my own "facts"...take what you will
Firstly, what do the "powers of rudimentary recognition" have anything to do with the original topic, which was asking whether there was a possibility that mantids have the potential to exercise "intelligence" or slightly more complicated cognitive processes beyond instincts (which is essentially to survive and reproduce).
You keep constantly arguing that the powers of rudimentary recognition imply some sort of intelligence, but such simple cognitive proccesses (or in your term, "powers of rudimentary recognition") have very little to do with conscious thoughts. Insincts do involve cognition but only few animals are capable of conscious thoughts or complex problem solving behaviour (and the only invertabrates which are capable of that are some species of Cephalopods). Instinct or "powers of rudimentary recognition" is derived via a bottom-up control, governed by selfish genes' need to persist in the population and spread. Such instinctive behaviour or rudimentary recognition is driven by genes, not intelligence.
The fact that you use the term "rudimentary" contradicts intelligence, which implies the ability to deal with complex cognition and information proccessing such as conscious thoughts or recognising human owners.
""This is called habituation, and it hasn't much to do with cognitive learning."Well, whatever label you want to use means nothing to me. The fact is, behavior modification based on observation is a rudimentary form of recognition, as I said."
I am not going to go into the ignorance of "recognising" habituation as a form of "rudimentary recognition"; dismissing many great scientific work done by neurobiologists/psychologists . Habituation is not driven by "rudimentary powers of recognition" but by neuropathways, and this is well proven in seaslugs. If you have any basic knowledge of neurobiology, habituation is a result of over excitation of receptor neurons due to the high levels of stimuli, which desensitises the receptors to specific stimuli; acting as an information filter. How is this related to inteligence?
I have provided the scientific facts, not my own "facts"...take what you will
Last edited by a moderator:
@ ExoticOddities:
Like Chun, I relied on scientific facts, either of several other workers, or, in case of the different hunting strategies, documented by myself. My short sentence on habituation was well explained by Chun.
The last paragraph was a general contribution to the topic, as suggestions on mantid intelligence arise rather often.
I'm with Mr. Blue, leaving the discussion here. It's not that I agreed with all he said, but I don't like the direction the discussion is heading to. I am too tired seeing this kind of pseudo-facts and personal statements mix being elevated to a truth-like status. For this time I'm out.
Like Chun, I relied on scientific facts, either of several other workers, or, in case of the different hunting strategies, documented by myself. My short sentence on habituation was well explained by Chun.
The last paragraph was a general contribution to the topic, as suggestions on mantid intelligence arise rather often.
I'm with Mr. Blue, leaving the discussion here. It's not that I agreed with all he said, but I don't like the direction the discussion is heading to. I am too tired seeing this kind of pseudo-facts and personal statements mix being elevated to a truth-like status. For this time I'm out.
Too deep for memantidsandgeckos
Well-known member
I dont understand anything
idolomantis
Well-known member
ExoticOddities
Well-known member
I agree ... my oh my ... how a simple observation I made that mantids have rudimentary powers to recognize certain things in their world has degenerated into little more than a buncha mental masturbation about naught.
Sir, you provided no facts at all, only statements. You then did the exact same thing these other gentlemen did, which was build a strawman to knockdown, and then to go on to say the exact same thing I said in the beginning. You said, "Such instinctive behaviour or rudimentary recognition is driven by genes, not intelligence."
Once again, for the incredibly slow, nowhere in any post did I attribute "intelligence" to mantids. What I find consistently laughable is that after all of the hullaballo you wrote about the studies of neuropathways, etc., you still went on to refer to what mantises do as "rudimentary recognition," which was the exact same thing I said in the beginning.
Which again makes this entire digression utterly laughable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh really? You relied on "scientific facts," did you? Here is what you said originally: "A mantid is able to assess the direction where food is more abundant than at the actual position, and to switch that position or even foraging tactics due tu hunger level. At least some species are able to differentiate between different prey types and adapt the capturing technique to the respective prey."
Now then sir, since you want to split hairs with me on the meaning of words, the implications of intelligence, and the propensity to anthropomorphize, then kindly explain to me "scientifically" how a mantid as able to ASSESS anything. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of the word:
[SIZE=8pt]Main Entry: as·sess [/SIZE]
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈses, a-\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, probably from Medieval Latin assessus, past participle of assidēre, from Latin, to sit beside, assist in the office of a judge — more at assize
Date: 15th century
1: to determine the rate or amount of (as a tax)
2 a: to impose (as a tax) according to an established rate b: to subject to a tax, charge, or levy
3: to make an official valuation of (property) for the purposes of taxation
4: to determine the importance, size, or value of <assess a problem>
5: to charge (a player or team) with a foul or penalty
Mr. Christian, I would like you to explain "scientifically" which one of the 5 ways you have personally seen mantids ASSESS the world around them. I am assuming you mean the 4th definition, which implies some sort of cognition or intelligence. And after you have cited all of your reference materials and past studies as "factual" support of your position (because, remember, you have used "nothing but facts" here), I would then like you to explain "scientifically" how mantids DIFFERENTIATE between different prey types (again, your word usage). Again, here is the Merriam-Webster definition of this word:
[SIZE=8pt]Main Entry: dif·fer·en·ti·ate [/SIZE]
Pronunciation: \ˌdif-ə-ˈren(t)-shē-ˌāt\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): dif·fer·en·ti·at·ed; dif·fer·en·ti·at·ing
Date: 1816
transitive verb
1 : to obtain the mathematical derivative of
2 : to mark or show a difference in : constitute a difference that distinguishes
3 : to develop differential characteristics in
4 : to cause differentiation of in the course of development
5 : to express the specific distinguishing quality of : discriminate
intransitive verb
1 : to recognize or give expression to a difference
2 : to become distinct or different in character
3 : to undergo differentiation
Now then, I assume you were using the 1st intransitive definition of the word "differentiate" as it applies to mantids, which says to RECOGNIZE differences, which is what I said back in the beginning, is it not? That means that this entire series of senseless diatribes from Mr. Blue, you Mr. Christian, and now Mr. Chun have all consisted of the same exact laughable hypocrisy of challenging my word use ... attacking things I never said to begin with ... and then ultimately concluding your own rants by saying the exact same thing I said in the beginning.
Congratulations gentlemen.
That would be great if you wouldn't say anything further, and it would be even greater if you acknowledge that you shouldn't have said anything to begin with. But if you are going to come back and say something, please do it from that big platform of "facts" you say you've used. Kindly delve into the powers mantids have to ASSESS the elements in their world, as defined by the dictionary, and then do explain "scientifically" how your claiming that mantids DIFFERENTIATE the prey items in their world involves no form of "rudimentary recognition" at all, which is what I said in the beginning.
This should be stunning
Jack
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Birdfly
Well-known member
Well instead of playing the last word game, my kids do this!! can we get back to the mantis intelligence thing.
I dont know how smart a mantis is, its smart enough to survive the wild, usually, but problem solving smart is a different matter.
I found this on Portia, a genus of spiders renound for there problem solving capabilities, its quite interesting especially as it concerns an arthropod with "brains".
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1640513/posts
Although not mantids, dogs have been found to be able to "fast map", only one other animal can do this and thats man, no monkeys or apes are able to do it, apparently.
The reason they can do it is because they are survivours, habituated to captivity, they have started from scratch and learned how to live alongside man and have been succesfully doing this for many generations, this got me thinking...several generations of mantids, nah. but a hungry animal is keen.
I dont know how smart a mantis is, its smart enough to survive the wild, usually, but problem solving smart is a different matter.
I found this on Portia, a genus of spiders renound for there problem solving capabilities, its quite interesting especially as it concerns an arthropod with "brains".
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1640513/posts
Although not mantids, dogs have been found to be able to "fast map", only one other animal can do this and thats man, no monkeys or apes are able to do it, apparently.
The reason they can do it is because they are survivours, habituated to captivity, they have started from scratch and learned how to live alongside man and have been succesfully doing this for many generations, this got me thinking...several generations of mantids, nah. but a hungry animal is keen.
MANTIS DUDE
Well-known member
MY THEORY IS THAT MANTIDS ARE ACTUALY THE MOST INTELEGENT CRETURES IN THE UNIVERSE, MUCH SMARTER THAN HUMANS! THEY ARE ONLY HOLDING BACK THERE ATEMPTS TO DESTROY THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE BECAUSE THEY RELIZE THAT PEACE IS THE AWNSER TO HAPPYNESS AND SO THEY BE CONTENT! :lol: :lol: :lol:
idolomantis
Well-known member
:blink: forgot to take your antibiotics? :lol:
