I highly recommend reading the article entitled "Can Animals Think? by
Eugene Linden, in Time Magazine, Sept. 6, 1999, p. 57. It's anecdotes
about instances of animal intelligence as documented by people who work
with animals (zoo keepers, researchers, breeders etc). Mr Linden wrote
a book on the subject called "the Parrot's Lament", which might be worth
reading, based on this article which appears to be taken from the book.
I have come to think that many (not all, of course) of the gurus of
training these days have fallen into a bit of formula thinking, which
might be easier when presenting info in seminars, but has devolved into
a more mechanical process of relating to horses (or, if the training
gurus aren't guilty of this, it appears many devotees of the gurus
are!). It seems to me when we talk about moving a horse's feet,
"pushing" the hind away with our body language, etc., we're talking
about a mechanical process that eventually is supposed to result in an
"aha!" in the horse's brain - the horse is expected to make an
intellectual leap that so many people don't credit the horse with having
the ability to do!
If a person who worked with horse entered into the relationship with the
belief that the horse could think, could reason, could understand
clearly communicated concepts, that the horse was much more than a
biological machine, then it seems to me (a person who believes horses
*can* do all these things) that not only would the horse learn better
and faster , but the result of this respect for other beings and the
increased quality of human belief systems would result in happier,
healthier horses and happier and healthier horse/human relationships.
And (sorry if this offends anyone) everyone would be more balanced in
the Karma bank.
Well, I'm not sure about the Karma bank but this is so true. And I think
the Equine Research Foundations finding that horses can 'learn to learn'
more is so often demonstrated in front of our very eyes. The more deeply you
relate the the horse, the more deeply he relates back, the more you engage
his mind, the more 'engageable' and capable it becomes.
It beats me how people can miss it and stick to mechanics - you may have to
start there, sure, but why stop there - it's only fraction of what is
available! My lad is not up to much physiologically at the moment, but I can
gently carry on every day developing that mind, that attitude - it is
astonishing just how much progress can be made, how many infinately small
little steps can be acheived. The more you break it down, the more you can
see to break it down - it's so enthralling!
Animals, when well-trained, are capable of remarkable feats of learning.
They can even learn stuff we didn't even think we were teaching them. Clever
Hans, for example.
Let me recommend IF A LION COULD TALK by Stephen Budiansky, the author of ON
THE NATURE OF HORSES. His book is a fascinating exploration of the learning
abilities of animals.
I think its vital to try to look at the factor of animal intelligence from their
perspective. In reality there are many cases of animals that have out done them
selves and their species as far as intelligence in concerned.. but from a horses
view what would be intelligence?
Lets take a look at what humans call intelligence... some may be surprised but
intelligence at its very core is the ability to solve problems logicly.. thats
why we call scientists intelligent, and phylosophers crazy.. even in our ability
to express thoughts on paper.. the only reason that it is intelligent is because
the word signifieng emotion and actions are place in a logical order in which we
being logical (more or less) being can understand. Most animals, including
horses have have all the sences nessesary for the performance of an
'intelligent' task.. as a matter of fact there have been many cases in which
horses have shown logical and learned intelligence.
Take for example the event in which ponies have been known to be able to read
the numbers on the jumps, or the procedure to open a stable gate. Horse
obviously have the ability to learn... but does the ability to learn alone
denote intelligence? Personaly I dont think so... A brick tied to a string can
be made to swing.. and swing.. and swing.. and in a way that is what something
learned is.. just like a computer that knows a program... however.. the
intelligence comes in to practice when its used to problem solve. The brick will
never swing faster or learn how to swing more effectivly.. however animals can
learn and improve.
I remember reading an article about testing horses intelligence. One of the test
included putting some carrots into a plastic garbage bin and letting the horse
work alone at trying to open the lid to get the carrots. Now if one were to
notice the progress of this.. one would not only find out that the horse can
open this bin.. but the time it takes for it to open.. would steadly decreas..
because the horse learns to identify the problem and come up with the best
possible solution.. isnt that logic? So would this mean intelligence? Most
scientists are very willing to call a machine intelligent... however they over
look even the simplests and smallest organizms such as ants.. which in their
behaviour are 'intelligent?' But something is missing in the comparison of ants
and humans, or sertain other animals... that is the basic of emotion.
An ant cant be punished.. or at least maybe its emotion are on such a small
scale.. that we simply do not see it. Lets take a look at emotion in its view of
punishment. A horse when punished.. knows its being punished.. it wont fight
back (if you are in the right hirarchy as far as its concerned) and it will
humbly accept the punishement and learn from the mistake. Ok I will stop here
because I have to get back to work :) All in all I beliave that most.. not ALL
animals are capable of showing the kind of intelligence that we would call
intelligence simply because its the intelligence that we can see... and able to
relate to the human concept of intelligence.. but there are many things we still
as humans dont understand.. and probably never will.. but I love beliaving and
treating animals like intelligent beings.. this provides compassion.. and
love... and above all the ability to communicate with the horse.. because if the
horse was not intelligent in its own way.. how would we be able to communicate
with it.
What about Koko and Michael the talking gorillas (they use sign
language). If you've ever read some of their conversations, you'd
find they think very much like a child. They observe well but they
don't always percieve things accurately. Very entertaining and thot
provoking stuff.
I once ran into a man (in my lifetime travels) who was very intimidated
by the notion that animals could think. I found this very amusing at
first but then I noticed how high his reactivity was. It was if he
were an ostrich sticking his head in a hole. He kept repeating
"Animals cannot reason or think." This man was unable to address any
evidence that was counter to this statement. After I thot about it
for a bit, I pondered why his reaction was so raw, full of emotion
that eliminated any possibility in discussing the issue.
I suppose, for some people, it's easier to pigeon hole ideas
(comparementalize them) so that the world makes sense. My husband
and I have a phrase to describe this phenomomenon. We call it, "Poor
potty-training." :-}
As flippant as the phrase is, it really is alarming. It means some
people cannot, are unwilling or are unable to think in terms outside
preconceived boundaries - the boundaries that makes the world safe
and understandable for them. But in making that choice or being locked
that way, these are the same people who cannot enjoy the contribution
animals make in our lives.
It means they can't do things like consider the horse.
Where did you get the notion that people call philosophers crazy?
How funny! Einstein was a philosopher as well as a physicist. He
originated his concept of the theory of relativity through pure thought
experiments. While he might not be considered the most average of
humans, I doubt most people would consider Einstein crazy.
Philosophers could be considered a kind of scientist, except that they
experiment with ideas rather than things in the material world. They
must follow logical procedures, they must be able to logically prove
their conclusions, and their thought experiments must be duplicable,
just like with the other sciences. Scientists who study quantum physics
- - a field which is on the extreme edge of "hard science" - are
considered by many to be philosophers as well.
I would also have to beg to differ about your definition of learning. A
string swinging has learned nothing. Learning involves memory and the
ability to extrapolate what has been learned from one situation to
another (similar but not the same) situation. If you showed someone how
to use a telescope to find a star (involving focusing, using the written
coordinates, etc) but the person never could find another star, then has
that person learned to use a telescope? I think another key to what
learning is about is the ability to initiate the process learned. A
string cannot itself initiate another instance of swinging once the
effect of the initial push has died down, but I'm sure we'd all agree
that an orangutan that pick a lock with a wire it has stored in it's
mouth over and over again, has certainly learned to pick locks!
I am not sure I would agree with you that "Most scientists are very
willing to call a machine intelligent". There is a test that scientists
who study artificial intelligence use, called the Turing Test. Any
machine that cannot pass the Turing test is not considered to be
intelligent. I don't think there is a machine yet that has passed it
*in every instances of the testing*.
The issue of animal (and machine)
intelligence has been a hot one for a long time. I have always been
suspicious that people who feel that only humans can be intelligent are
people who feel threatened by the idea of animal & machine
intelligence. In the 1950s, Isaac Asimov, the late, great (and
extremely intelligent!) science fiction and science author started a
series of books about this issue - the Robot Series. In these books,
Asimov explored idea of human/artifical intelligence interaction, the
fears that humans had about them, and the the psychological and social
consequences, both good and bad. Asimov was by no means the first
person to discuss artificial intelligence, just one of the most famous.
What he wrote applies to our relationships with animals as well.
It could be quite possible that the person, assuming animals not
to be intelligent did some things that in retrospect were not very
nice. I mean if you treat an animal as just an object you may not
be very happy when you find out they are reasoning creatures.
That being said, on this whole subject, I think we may analyze
things to death :-). Let's just say that horses are amazing
creatures. Can they read our minds? Who knows, they are very in
the moment and incredibly sensitive and may read things in body
movement that we may never understand.
As Buck says, the horses become his legs. When is the last
time you had to think about walking?
I have found the discussion and stories on animal intelligence entertaining
and interesting, but have also been a little mystified by the premise-
because I have always considered animals to be "intelligent", more or less,
according to their species' development and needs. Horses are considered
extremely adaptable- they learn very quickly what is needed of them to
survive in whatever situation they find themselves. And like people, some
horses seem much more intelligent; more curious and experimental with
their environment.
Conceptual reasoning power is what has been doubted for the species, as
least as far as we are able to measure it in them. But it has not been
needed for their survival, so has not been selected for over the aeons. I
suspect, however, that we may be surprised in the future to learn how much
more is going on in animal's brains than we have been able to ascertain up
to now.
We humans tend to define intelligence in our own terms. Then we set about
training animals to behave in ways that conform to our own definition of
"intelligence." When they behave the way we taught them to behave, we deem
them "intelligent." The latest barrier is the language barrier, so
everybody's trying to teach animals to "talk" somehow. As if they couldn't
communicate already.
What we fail to recognize is the inborn intelligence about their own lives
and their world that allows them to adapt so well to our world.
You can train a pidgeon to peck out pictures that say "Pidgeon flies home,"
in the correct order. But nobody can tell you whether or not the pidgeon
associates this task with his amazing ability to fly home from just about
anywhere.
To discover the intelligence in a horse requires, of itself, some
intelligence, I think.
Perhaps that has been the misfortune of the horse. The human need not be
terribly bright to ride one...but the horse needs to be terribly patient
and understanding to endure it.
I mention this now because my 25 year old horse, again suprised me last
night and this morning. Instead of treating him like a 6 month old child, I
decided to talk with him like a friend. I thought it might not hurt to act
as if I expected he would understand.
Well, you know, at age 25, this guy had a habit of turning his head away
(probably in boredom and disgust) at the first onset of the baby talk.
Last night there was no baby talk. And last night, for the first time, he
turned his head toward me as I talked to him.
I have mentioned before that the receptive language of an animal may have a
vast capacity for understanding even though the mechanics of speech to
convey expressive language is absent.
He tries to tell me things but I, in my stupidity and human species
arrogance have never gone beyond thinking that his nicker is just a
greeting and not an invitation into a conversation.
I discovered last night that he wants more than an acknowledgment
that he exists on the planet. He does want to communicate more than a
nicker of greeting. He likes it when I talk to him.
The most exciting part of NH for me involves the concept
that each horse is a unique individual, with its own personality,
set of experiences--past and present--intelligence and spirit.
I treasure the opportunity to discover each horse whose
path I cross, the ups and downs.
I try to treat every animal as an intelligent, sensient being and
I really appreciate the centeredness of NH work and that the
horse is not enslaved, broken or forced to hide its spirit
within itself from the pain dealt by the human. It can venture
to share itself with us, to teach us about how its world
really is.
I seek a give-and-take, an energy flow, a feeling between
us (or among us, if more than two), a cooperative effort.
And when my presence is sought, I accept that as a gift
and a compliment.
All species have language. All species have life. We can
niggle and argue the interpretations. NH is a method of
translating horse for humans who seek a different path,
not necessarily the easy one. Not a quick fix. There really
aren't thirty minute wonders, though amazing things can
happen in such a short time.
The feel isn't rushed, though. It comes with time, from
consistent handling and training, with good timing and feel.
It's a two way thing. And when it works out right, it's heaven on earth.
Or as close as we poor humans can get, for me.
Perhaps if people allowed themselves to entertain the possibility that
animals can think, or even simply have feelings, they might be forced to
rethink their "right" to dominate, inflict pain on in the name of commerce,
use cruel practices to train, eat etc all of the world's other lifeforms -
because "they are only animals" and "Animals cannot reason or think." This
obviously too hard to do.
