Wapsi Square Forum

Poor Digit looks so sad in the first panel.

http://wapsisquare.com/comic/gross-and-scary/

JSStryker wrote:Poor Digit looks so sad in the first panel.

http://wapsisquare.com/comic/gross-and-scary/

The second panel is clearly "Digit vs. Digit".

I do regret that I have to admit that calling the third panel "Gidget vs. Fidget" doesn't quite work. Amanda isn't a beach bunny, and Monica looks more annoyed than fidgety.

Aw, poor Digit. Rejected again.

Doooo eeeeeet Amanda!!! Doooo eeeeeeet!!!!

I think it's amazing that Paul managed to convey emotions such as sadness, loneliness, and then hope and cuddliness... In a fairly accurate spider face.

A spider face. And not a cartoony anthropomorphic one like the spider from A Bug's Life.

Absolutely amazing.

I mean, come on! Spiders probably haven't got the capacity to experience any emotion, let alone express them. And Paul got a fairly accurate drawing of one to convey some complex emotion!

Maybe I'm being weird, but I think that is really cool and very clever.

I agree, it's quite a feat.

At least part of it is body language. Look at the position of Digit's palps and front legs... in the first panel I'd call her posture "downcast", and in the second panel she's sitting up to be petted, just like a puppy would.

As to a spider's ability to experience emotion... another way of looking at it is that a lot of the internal state of simpler lifeforms like spiders might be nothing but emotion... anger/rage, fear, mating lust, etc. They may not be able to introspect about it as we do, but they certainly do express and communicate it.

If you want a possibly-mindblowing look at the whole subject, dig up Boone's "Kinship With All Life".

Huh... I haven't thought of simpler minds from that viewpoint in a while.

For a while now, I've been thinking of the brain as a computer. Granted, it's a really complicated, extremely advanced computer, but still a computer.

Y'know how transistors are run at high voltage to prevent false results? (I think that's how it was described... Basically, the "off" is very, very low, and the "on" is very, very high, leaving a huge gap between to prevent off's from accidentally registering as on's and vice versa) Neurons run at a much lower intensity, so to compensate, we have a whole bunch of neurons... And they vote. That's how our brains deal with the margin of error. Granted, there are glitches, but it usually works out ok.

On that line of thought, if the brain is a computer, I tend to equate consciousness with Operating systems, and emotions and thoughts with programs. The more advanced the mind, the more complex programs it's capable of running without laaaaaag.

So the thought of a spider experiencing an emotion like hope? That kinda sounds like someone trying to run a heavily modded Skyrim on a Compaq.

that little cutie reminds me so much of one i had as a pet in my younger days

Speaking as an arachnophobe I have to side with Amanda here. Too many legs, too many eyes to be "cute". The only thing not sending me into screaming fits is the computer screen. EDIT The only reason I'm not having screaming fits is it's a drawing on a computer screen.

GlytchMeister wrote:I think it's amazing that Paul managed to convey emotions such as sadness, loneliness, and then hope and cuddliness... In a fairly accurate spider face.

A spider face. And not a cartoony anthropomorphic one like the spider from A Bug's Life.

Absolutely amazing.

I mean, come on! Spiders probably haven't got the capacity to experience any emotion, let alone express them. And Paul got a fairly accurate drawing of one to convey some complex emotion!

Maybe I'm being weird, but I think that is really cool and very clever.

Jumping spiders are capable of problem solving, planning, and foresight. They are one of the smatest types of arthropods. So, they might be capable of rudimentary emotions.

Either that or their brains are optimized for using every bit it can for intelligence and emotions were sacrificed for the sake of being smart. Though, all animals seem to have a basic fear response from what I've heard.

As pointed out by Dejin on the main page, the eyebrows help a lot.

Opus the Poet wrote:Speaking as an arachnophobe I have to side with Amanda here. Too many legs, too many eyes to be "cute". The only thing not sending me into screaming fits is the computer screen. EDIT The only reason I'm not having screaming fits is it's a drawing on a computer screen.

I know an arachnophobe that has trouble even with that . . .

--FreeFlier

GlytchMeister wrote:Y'know how transistors are run at high voltage to prevent false results? (I think that's how it was described... Basically, the "off" is very, very low, and the "on" is very, very high, leaving a huge gap between to prevent off's from accidentally registering as on's and vice versa)

I wouldn't describe "on" as "very, very high" - some processors nowadays can run properly at less than one volt (lower voltage reduces heat).

However, it's true that "on" is relatively high, compared to "off", and there is a significant gap between them.

Just to confuse things, some circuits invert that: "on" is low and "off" is high.

JSStryker wrote:Poor Digit looks so sad in the first panel.

But look at her in the last panel! =°D

Gyrrakavian wrote:As pointed out by Dejin on the main page, the eyebrows help a lot.

Got yer eyebrows right here. Can be very expressive when called upon to be.

GlytchMeister wrote:Huh... I haven't thought of simpler minds from that viewpoint in a while.

For a while now, I've been thinking of the brain as a computer. Granted, it's a really complicated, extremely advanced computer, but still a computer.

Y'know how transistors are run at high voltage to prevent false results? (I think that's how it was described... Basically, the "off" is very, very low, and the "on" is very, very high, leaving a huge gap between to prevent off's from accidentally registering as on's and vice versa) Neurons run at a much lower intensity, so to compensate, we have a whole bunch of neurons... And they vote. That's how our brains deal with the margin of error. Granted, there are glitches, but it usually works out ok.

On that line of thought, if the brain is a computer, I tend to equate consciousness with Operating systems, and emotions and thoughts with programs. The more advanced the mind, the more complex programs it's capable of running without laaaaaag.

Consider, though, that there is a lot of "state" in the body, and the nervous system in particular, which isn't just in the wiring. There are a lot of chemicals running around in the system, too, both by directed conveyance and by diffusion... adrenalin, oxytocin, make and female sex hormones, glucose, etc. These both reflect and affect a human's emotional state, often quite profoundly... and equivalents and analogs of these are found all throughout the animal kingdom. Plants seem to have a chemical-based means of communication and reaction which operates entirely without what we would consider to be a nervous system.

I think it's a mistake to be either "too reductionist" or "too holistic" when considering Mind... or too sanguine about our status as "advanced" humans. We really don't know where the boundaries lie.

Time after time, when Science tries to define behavioral characteristics that supposedly separate humans from "mere animals", we learn that clear counter-examples exist. Tool use, tool building, comradeship, development of trust relationships, "theory of mind", a grasp of numbers, recognition of others as individuals, the ability to mourn the loss of a close family member, an appreciation of fair or unfair treatment... one after another, the distinctions turn out to be not so very distinct at all.

Yes, we do a lot of those things better and more consistently than other species of animal... but we are not alone in being able to do them.

So far as I'm aware, humans are still the only known species to make tools that we use to make tools for tool-making.

...and yet, in another thread on another part of this board, we're discussing a major corporation begun and operated by centaurs.

Warrl wrote:So far as I'm aware, humans are still the only known species to make tools that we use to make tools for tool-making.

So far. I'm not going to guess how long it will be, before a bunch of researchers stumble across a family of bonobos running the equivalent of a "lathe cutters and drill bits, sold, bartered, exchanged, and sharpened" store.

Dave wrote:

Warrl wrote:So far as I'm aware, humans are still the only known species to make tools that we use to make tools for tool-making.

So far. I'm not going to guess how long it will be, before a bunch of researchers stumble across a family of bonobos running the equivalent of a "lathe cutters and drill bits, sold, bartered, exchanged, and sharpened" store.

The weird part is that food and sexual favors seem to be the two things bonobo barter with.