> kate sisco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[I wrote:]
>> 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)....
>> 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.
The choices are of course limited -- I am not saying
that a horse has anywhere near the same capacity to
free will as a human. However, some horses, usually
either feral or previously abused, will choose to
actually _fight_; others have chosen to flee/escape
even if it means injury or death. While I cannot
comment on the veracity of old cowboys' tales of
mustangs 'delib'rately drownding theirselves in a few
inches o' water,' I have several times witnessed a
domestic horse determinedly throw herself through wire
or pipe panel fencing because she was angry at having
her favorite companion horse ridden away (I am using
"angry" here as shorthand for behavior/body language
that was not fearful on her part, but aggressive;
AFAIK she had never been abused).
> 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
Just a note: the procedure of cutting a wild horse off
from his herdmates, while not violent, is nevertheless
_emotionally_ traumatic for the animal. A horse all
alone is fearful, anxious and under tremendous mental
stress; s/he is so desperate to be a member of _any_
herd that even a human becomes acceptable as companion
and leader. (This goes back tangentially to an
earlier discussion of the behavioral differences
between prey and predatory species.)
WRT round pen techniques ('a horse, after running a
quarter-mile, about the distance most predators would
quit chasing, gets to feeling desperate, and starts
looking to the human in the center for possible
help'): As I told a client whose dangerously
aggressive horse I was disciplining (by running him
_hard_ in an arena), "Even though I'm not striking
him, he is afraid and very stressed out -- from his
perspective, this prolonged chase is terrifying." I
was not permitting him much of a choice: stand and be
touched, or keep running at high speed. [NOTE: Such
extreme measures should only be undertaken with a
*truly* dangerous animal, whose alternative fate, if
he continues to attack humans, is to be killed. Never
should a young or non-aggressive horse be thus
forced.]
> 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.
Indeed, unpredictability is one of the hallmarks of
horse behavior; in this case, has the human been a
good enough leader (good grazing, plenty of water,
safety from predator attack, sense of belonging) that
the horse will choose him/her over "freedom?" Of
course, a choice between _going off on his own_ or
staying with a friendly human is biased in favor of
remaining with his new herdmate/leader, with whom he
has eaten well and been safe from predators. A choice
between the human and his former herdmates would be
much more iffy to predict; depending on the time-frame
involved (say less than a year), I'd lean toward the
former herd being chosen. A domestic horse who has
bonded to ers human will choose most of the time to
leave ers horse-herd, and willingly go to be haltered
and taken away (even if only temporarily) from the
other horses. One unbonded will not do so willingly,
and try to get back to ers herd ASAP (we call such
horses "barn-sour," because they'll do just about
anything to get back to their barn/herd).
> Shy Boy has to overcome his very stong natural herd
> instict to return to his trainer, yet he does so.
Actually, he has changed one herd for another.
> 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?
I agree that 'free will' can probably only be
manifested in the context of living in some sort of
social structure; I'd further suggest that some degree
of sense-of-self must be present, in order for there
to be an entity that chooses, freely. (Again, that
awareness of self will be much more limited, in nearly
all animals, than a human's.)
> 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 actualized ala
> Maslow?
Sorry, not familiar with that reference (hint for a
concise ref or cite! :D ); I haven't followed
research on the unfortunate real-life experiments that
have played out (frex abandoned Rumanian children,
deprived of loving behavior in those warehouses of
'orphanages'), but I think I recall seeing something
about these now-street-teens as forming some sort of
weird society of their own...? Certainly
infant->young monkeys deprived of loving care develop
abnormally, unable to fit in with monkey society, and
even demonstrating behavior that appears to be
psychotic, autistic or neurotic. But - IIRC - there
has also been research into something called 'genetic
resiliency;' some individuals rise above horrid
childhoods to become successful members of society,
while others are genetically predisposed to 'failure'
*only if* they have deprived childhoods (I guess that
would be a twins study?).
> 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?
As long as one has had _some_ sort of family life
(IIRC, even abusive situations are 'better' than utter
neglect; a sense of what is fair and unfair still
develops), and has a sense of oneself as an
individual, I think that one has free will. As long
as you have a group to be 'outsiders' with, I think
you 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.
No argument with that last statement...but then, as
'one of Existance's highest expressions,' I *would*
agree, no? ;)
Debbi
You Are A Child Of The Universe...Maru :)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
