Is truly humbling that so much "intelligence" can fit in a raisin-sized animal. I once thought that these tiny brains would soon reveal their secrets to us. I briefly contributed to the effort - poking microelectrodes into crayfish neurons and creating 3D EM models. Now I am pretty sure that I won't live to see much progress. We just don't have the tools to reverse-engineer a supercomputer the size of a pinhead.
600,000 neurons seems small enough to simulate - and microscopes are easily good enough to discern cells (neurons) and their connections. Though the weightings between them probably can't be detected.
At least, that's my layman's view... what specific aspects of tools are actually deficient?
It could be a useful starting point for eventually understanding ourselves. I expect we'll need to develop hierarchical models for how neurons operate, to cope with the complexity... perhaps even new pure mathematics.
I think that there's a common thread that underlies the development of intelligence in both humans and Portia spiders. We both evolved in an environment where we were at a sensory and physical disadvantage to our prey. We both relied more on understanding the behavior of our prey in order to hunt. In the case of early humans, we adopted a style of hunting known as persistence hunting.
Persistence hunting ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting )is a general hunting strategy in which a hunter chases their prey over a very long distance(15-30 miles). Eventually the prey becomes weak and succumbs to exhaustion. On its own, that's not very special -- both dogs and hyenas adopt a very similar hunting strategy. The key difference is that humans lack the extremely sensitive sensory abilities that are used by other persistence hunters.
In the absence of such senses, early hominids had to predict where prey would go and accurately pursue them over very long distances based on very small amounts of visual evidence. In short, early hominids hunted by simulating the minds of their prey. If you look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o (a documentary on persistence hunting), you can watch some Kudu tribesmen literally simulating where an antelope will go.
It certainly seems to me like lucking into an evolutionary niche where you get caloric benefits that are directly linked to how well you can simulate the fairly-complicated minds of your prey is pretty much a recipe for extreme selective pressure in favor of general intelligence.
The story is a little different in the case of Portia, given that they are apparently at a visual advantage to their prey. However, I think the examples mentioned in the article make a strong case that Portia's comparative hunting advantage is in planning the best attack method based on the behavior of a given type of prey.
To me (as a complete layman), this is the most interesting topic in biology, the 21st century's origin of species topic. Intelligence in biology.
For species like this spider or octupi where our last common ancestor is so early, it begs the question is how much of the evolution of these minds is a product of convergent evolution. That would be a partial answer to one of the Drake Equation's components.
Biological Intelligence is such a big question and it goes to the core of discovering what we are.
Some sort of middling-high degree of intelligence seems very likely, because we have it in multiple lines on this planet (octopus, multiple bird lines, whales and dolphins, etc.). It is less clear that the next step to a technological intelligence is very popular; I can't prove it but I seriously doubt all this middling-high intelligence developed in the last ~2 million years during humanity's ascent. Very likely many of those middling-high intelligences were around for millions of years before hominids began their intelligence explosion (with the hominids themselves being another "middling-high" intelligence for who knows how long before then). It's not out of the question that many dinosaurs or other things extinct for millions of years were middling-high intelligence too.
We can't get great data on this, because it is also likely that the first technological species precludes the natural development of any future one at least concurrently, and possibly for extended periods of time. (i.e., even if humanity accidentally designs its replacement, whatever form that may take, that won't be relevant data for the Drake equation, or we may "pollute" the genetics of the planet with a lot more intelligence than could ever naturally develop, causing intelligent species to start popping up every few hundred thousand years all over the place even if they all kill themselves off if our most cynical commentators are to be believed).
We do have good reason to believe intelligence is really quite expensive. We humans pay a lot for it, if you really get into the biology of it. It may be the case there's a quite significant gap between "middling high" and the technological intelligence the Drake equation is about, and having only one sample that said "somebody made it" tells us not much, since we are the observer observing that fact.
If a Portia spider has only 600K of neurons it is within range of simulating and testing it with current technology, for example the TrueNorth chip has 1 million neuronlike structures (Spaun, Blue Brain project or the TrueNorth chip) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueNorth
It all reminds me a bit of the Vernor Vinge SF novel about intelligent spiders:
"The planet's inhabitants, called "Spiders" by the humans for their resemblance to arachnids, have reached a stage of technological development very similar to that of Earth's humans in the early 20th century, although humans believe that they may once have been capable of space travel."
Is it a coincidence that Spiders and Octopi have 2^3 legs and are more intelligent then we expected them to be?
It's not just the number of neurons that makes brains so complex, it is also the far larger number of connections. The average brain cell is connected to 1000 up to 10000 other cells. So for 600K neurons the simulation needs to simulate something between 600 and 6000 million connections.
Will we ever be able to scan the wiring of this spider's neurons and "run it" on a computer? That would be amazing, I think. Then we could create virtual worlds for these virtual spiders and let them evolve, supposedly much faster than "normal" evolution.
> However being so small, there is a trade-off in that Portia can only focus its eyes on a tiny spot. It has to build up a picture of the world by scanning almost pixel by pixel across the visual scene.
This is fascinating. I wonder if the limited visual focus plays a similar role as consciousness in higher animals. It enables the brain to work on larger problems by focusing on one small Problem at a time.
> The same species of Portia trapped a few hundred miles away doesn’t show any evidence of seeing the egg sac.
Spiders aren't social... but this sounds like cultural knowledge, passed on from parents or peers. Or perhaps acquired over a number of encounters (especially the given trial and error Portia exhibits).
mmh... they are social in one moment of its lives that could explain this. Mother and young have a strong bound for a while. I'm just wildly speculating, but a nymph spider sit in the abdomen of their mother could learn what to chase just seeing its mother chasing. "They born with that skill" is a strong candidate, but not the only possibility here. They need to repeat the experiment from spiders raised since eggs if not done before.
Is there any research on whether this local adaptations have a genetic or epigenetic origin? One would expect it to be purely genetic, but I'd be super-cool if the Portia had developed some way to transmit learned adaptations to their descendants.
This was a very interesting article. Thanks for posting! I have read about the web-plucking behavior before, but had no idea about its path-finding abilities.
> And then there is the realisation that this is a population-specific, not species-specific, trait! It is a bit of locally acquired genetic knowledge.
Some human populations "know" how to digest milk, and some don't. Non species-specific. It's a bit of locally acquired "genetic knowledge" as well.
What tools do we currently have to map neural signaling and structure?
Are there ways to automate the measurements on a large scale?
Are we able to feed digitally modeled neural signals mimicking real signals to live neural structures - ie. feed complex input signals and record the outputs?
[+] [-] intrasight|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hyperpallium|9 years ago|reply
At least, that's my layman's view... what specific aspects of tools are actually deficient?
It could be a useful starting point for eventually understanding ourselves. I expect we'll need to develop hierarchical models for how neurons operate, to cope with the complexity... perhaps even new pure mathematics.
[+] [-] jplewicke|9 years ago|reply
Persistence hunting ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting )is a general hunting strategy in which a hunter chases their prey over a very long distance(15-30 miles). Eventually the prey becomes weak and succumbs to exhaustion. On its own, that's not very special -- both dogs and hyenas adopt a very similar hunting strategy. The key difference is that humans lack the extremely sensitive sensory abilities that are used by other persistence hunters.
In the absence of such senses, early hominids had to predict where prey would go and accurately pursue them over very long distances based on very small amounts of visual evidence. In short, early hominids hunted by simulating the minds of their prey. If you look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o (a documentary on persistence hunting), you can watch some Kudu tribesmen literally simulating where an antelope will go.
It certainly seems to me like lucking into an evolutionary niche where you get caloric benefits that are directly linked to how well you can simulate the fairly-complicated minds of your prey is pretty much a recipe for extreme selective pressure in favor of general intelligence. The story is a little different in the case of Portia, given that they are apparently at a visual advantage to their prey. However, I think the examples mentioned in the article make a strong case that Portia's comparative hunting advantage is in planning the best attack method based on the behavior of a given type of prey.
[+] [-] aristus|9 years ago|reply
"Jumping spiders already have excellent vision and Portia’s is ten times as good, making it sharper than most mammals."
[+] [-] mirimir|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ggreer|9 years ago|reply
1. http://rifters.com/real/2009/01/iterating-towards-bethlehem....
[+] [-] taneq|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petewailes|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] runT1ME|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] netcan|9 years ago|reply
For species like this spider or octupi where our last common ancestor is so early, it begs the question is how much of the evolution of these minds is a product of convergent evolution. That would be a partial answer to one of the Drake Equation's components.
Biological Intelligence is such a big question and it goes to the core of discovering what we are.
[+] [-] jerf|9 years ago|reply
We can't get great data on this, because it is also likely that the first technological species precludes the natural development of any future one at least concurrently, and possibly for extended periods of time. (i.e., even if humanity accidentally designs its replacement, whatever form that may take, that won't be relevant data for the Drake equation, or we may "pollute" the genetics of the planet with a lot more intelligence than could ever naturally develop, causing intelligent species to start popping up every few hundred thousand years all over the place even if they all kill themselves off if our most cynical commentators are to be believed).
We do have good reason to believe intelligence is really quite expensive. We humans pay a lot for it, if you really get into the biology of it. It may be the case there's a quite significant gap between "middling high" and the technological intelligence the Drake equation is about, and having only one sample that said "somebody made it" tells us not much, since we are the observer observing that fact.
[+] [-] fsiefken|9 years ago|reply
Perhaps it can already be done with off the shelf hardware and software: https://www.neuron.yale.edu/phpBB/ http://www.nengo.ca/ http://www.nest-simulator.org/
It all reminds me a bit of the Vernor Vinge SF novel about intelligent spiders:
"The planet's inhabitants, called "Spiders" by the humans for their resemblance to arachnids, have reached a stage of technological development very similar to that of Earth's humans in the early 20th century, although humans believe that they may once have been capable of space travel."
Is it a coincidence that Spiders and Octopi have 2^3 legs and are more intelligent then we expected them to be?
[+] [-] misja111|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] talideon|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OneTwoFree|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malka|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] moptar|9 years ago|reply
http://www.artificialbrains.com/openworm
[+] [-] wozer|9 years ago|reply
This is fascinating. I wonder if the limited visual focus plays a similar role as consciousness in higher animals. It enables the brain to work on larger problems by focusing on one small Problem at a time.
(Of course, consciousness is more than that...)
[+] [-] hyperpallium|9 years ago|reply
Spiders aren't social... but this sounds like cultural knowledge, passed on from parents or peers. Or perhaps acquired over a number of encounters (especially the given trial and error Portia exhibits).
[+] [-] cronjobber|9 years ago|reply
I'd agree. A very generic visual learning apparatus seems less likely than a specialized visual skill to fit into 600k neurons.
[+] [-] pvaldes|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angelf|9 years ago|reply
The reason it's at least plausible is that epigenetics seem to be involved in the memory formation process (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3549063/)
[+] [-] vivin|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guard-of-terra|9 years ago|reply
Some human populations "know" how to digest milk, and some don't. Non species-specific. It's a bit of locally acquired "genetic knowledge" as well.
What's surprising here?
[+] [-] thaumasiotes|9 years ago|reply
What differs is whether we stop digesting milk, not whether we know how in the first place.
[+] [-] dharma1|9 years ago|reply
What tools do we currently have to map neural signaling and structure?
Are there ways to automate the measurements on a large scale?
Are we able to feed digitally modeled neural signals mimicking real signals to live neural structures - ie. feed complex input signals and record the outputs?
[+] [-] joshmarlow|9 years ago|reply
There's a project to simulate a nematode worm - http://www.openworm.org/
A bit more speculative but super interesting - http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/brain-emulation-roadmap-report.pdf
[+] [-] quotha|9 years ago|reply
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130319091256.h...