Follow is a quote from message 6, I think.
One of the most effective* tools in schooling horses
is to allow _them_ to choose how to respond to your
instructions - if they choose correctly, they are
rewarded and praised, while incorrect responses elicit
more work (or rarely outright punishment, for
dangerous behavior such as biting or kicking). [It is
your job to make sure that the animal is capable of
choosing correctly, i.e. not to set them up for
failure, which requires knowing how they think and
react, and modifying your behavior/demands to what
they _can_ do, not what you _wish_ them to do.] Yet,
knowing that correction will occur, a horse may choose
to behave "badly" -- and furthermore, will accept
'fair' correction, but rebel at 'unfair'
(disproportionate) punishment! That seems to me the
rudiments of free will.
In allowing choice, the parameters are narrowed to such an extent that the "choice" a
horse or a man makes is so limited as to illicit the desired resposnse, thus the
"right choice" is made giving the appearance of free will where no such free will
exists. In reading Shy Boy, the author, a horse trainer who devised his own way of
seeking to get the horse to agree with him, goes into the wilds, trails for days a
wild mustang, gets him to accept a saddle and bridle, brings the horse home where he
undergoes further training and then, at the request of his many fans, has to give the
horse a choice of freedom or returning to captivity. If there is any test of free
will, this surely qualifies. Monte Roberts has trained the horse with all the
kindness of which he is able, and yet he is unsure of how Shy Boy will react--will he
choose the herd to which he belonged or will he return.
Shy Boy has to overcome his very stong natural herd instict to return to his trainer,
yet he does so. If this is recognized as free will, which is limited by the horse's
intelligence, then it must also be recognized that free will can only be implemented
within a framework of consienience kindness and recognition and acceptance of that
particular individual's/horse's personality quirks.
The more close the bond, humans have more than dogs, dogs have more than horses,
horses have more rabbits, and intelligence is part of that bond, then the more willing
the individual is to perform to their maximum capability; their willingness to
demonstrate obedience using free will. But can't one make the argument that free will
is not implementable without an attachment? Isn't that what makes a member of society
an outcast? an inability to form a bond with its fellow humans and feel empathy? In
our society, we acknowledge that the first 3 years are where the future of the child's
relationships are formed. We know if the baby knows and experiences unconditional
love that that love is a stage upon which future tragedies may rise and fall, but the
stage still exists for yet more action, solidly supporting any number of life scenes
until the end of life. Can we have free will without being loved when we were first
born? Can we have free will without being fully actualiz
ed ala
Maslow? Can we live a deprived life, as being made to live without the job choices,
socialization, without others such as ourselves? If we were the only ones so
deprived, would we have free will? If we were seen as the outsiders, the only
outsiders, in a group, and denied group status, would we have free will?
So isn't free will contingent upon so many factors as to be not so free at all? Or
more accurately, free will depends upon first being captive to a deep and abiding
love. So perhaps free will is the highest expression of existance.
Thoughts?
ks
http//:www.chequamegon.blogspot.com
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
