Thinking like a horse?
jaz
To think or not to think...da, da, da, done. IMHO. [All disclaimers
apply here!] I will give my reasons for assuming that *horses think*, I
will believe they think because I have witnessed it myself. Now, you
who disbelieve, can leave now...this will only incite you to riot and
make your day completely unlivable.
If you have ever known an artist, ask them how they visualize. For most
people, it is hard for the layperson to think like an artist. I am an
artist, went to RISD and then have survived as a free-lance artist for
25 years, and still am surviving and thinking like one. The process of
visualization is second nature to me. I think of what I want to
accomplish....SEE it as a *postcard* if you will, and then go about
creating in a concrete way. Horses think in *postcard form*. Neither
needs language to be completed.
Intelligence, now there's the differing quotient, or brilliance to call
it another name. Am an artist, but I am not Renoir, Cezanne, or even
Warhol....they are genius. Some horses are brilliant, most are not. So
a horse has the ability to picture his desire, act or not act upon it
according to his intelligence. Next comes the senses. The sensual mode
is part of the building blocks of this form of thinking. Ie. the
ability to feel your aids and react to them, this may be ONLY a
reactive result to you....but you are short sighted....the horse is
thinking about his reply to you. His senses are in the package of his
thinking apparatus. Just as an artist *feels* his or her art.
This is a very simple explanation, it can get more abstract and deep if
you want to critique the essence of what is involved. I want to say
just the bare minute things, discussions can follow. Whew, and start
trouble with the back stabbing....please don't. Debate is welcome to see
from the people who have an inability to *picture* another way of life.
Go out and think of an image to your horse, say it is the best trot you
have ever ridden, ride the way you picture the image. I assure you,
your horse will travel better. Jane Savoie uses these techniques of
*postcard* riding with her horses, and has book out explaining their
use and more on the image control you can use on your own self.
I've said enough, I'm verclemp (spelling very questionable!), now go out
and discuss amongst yourselves.
jaz
user...@jax.jaxnet.com
snip Now, you
> who disbelieve, can leave now...this will only incite you to riot and
> make your day completely unlivable.
>
If you want to make my day unlivable, you're going to have try a heck
of a lot harder than this, although it is a shame that you are so afraid
of debate that you must ask those who might not agree to leave at the
beginning of the post.
> If you have ever known an artist, ask them how they visualize. For most
> people, it is hard for the layperson to think like an artist. I am an
> artist,
I am a working artist and do not believe my thinking to be so alien to the
oridnary human that they cannot grasp my methodology. My sanity is
another issue.
snip
> Intelligence, now there's the differing quotient, or brilliance to call
> it another name. snip Some horses are brilliant, most are not. So
> a horse has the ability to picture his desire, act or not act upon it
> according to his intelligence.
Picturing the desire is conceptual thought. It is detached from the desire
itself.
The horse does not *think* he is hungry, he *is* hungry. He does not form
an idea about it or have notions about how nice it would be to eat. He simply
feels hunger and proceeds to do things that have successfully satisfied that
need in the past.
Next comes the senses. The sensual mode
> is part of the building blocks of this form of thinking. Ie. the
> ability to feel your aids and react to them, this may be ONLY a
> reactive result to you....but you are short sighted....the horse is
> thinking about his reply to you. His senses are in the package of his
> thinking apparatus. Just as an artist *feels* his or her art.
A horse reacts to you in a certain way because the s/he has been
taught a series of cues that lead him to respond to those cues in the
way that has ended up either in overt reward or lessening of physical
discomfort, again he takes the path that has most sucessfully fullfilled
his needs in the past. If you trying to suggest that the horse has anything
other than a rudimentary capacity for thought in this regard, what
evidence do you have to offer in support of your claim?
snip
> Go out and think of an image to your horse, say it is the best trot you
> have ever ridden, ride the way you picture the image. I assure you,
> your horse will travel better. Jane Savoie uses these techniques of
> *postcard* riding with her horses, and has book out explaining their
> use and more on the image control you can use on your own self.
>
I don't think Jane Savoie's book implys that the horse reads your mind,
is able to grasp your visualiztion of *the best trot* and then produces
it for you. She speaks about the rider's ability to influence thier own
performance and with that, influence the performance of the horse.
By ascribing to the belief that if you think something the horse will do it
you place the responsibilty for that trot on the horse when it is the rider
who bears responsibility for the horse's performance. I can visualize a
brilliant trot all I want but if I don't ride up to the visualization,
I'm not going to get it.
I do believe that horses have the capacity for thought, of the horse
variety. I also think that they have emotions, fear certainly comes to
mind. But if you place lofty illusions of granduer on your animal's
abilities you rob them of the chance to be what they truly are and
yourself of the chance to assist them in becoming their best.
Sandy
and
Lexus
Snezewort
In article <users3n4-160...@ts2-002.jaxnet.com> users3n4 wrote:
>The horse does not *think* he is hungry, he *is* hungry. He does not form
>an idea about it or have notions about how nice it would be to eat. He
> simply feels hunger and proceeds to do things that have successfully
>satisfied that need in the past
Nor do you. Like the horse, you do not "think" you are hungry, you feel
hunger and act on it in ways that have previously satisfied your hunger.
I think that "hunger" is an inappropriate trigger for thought experiments on
horses. Horses with free access to hay and forage probably seldom feel
"hunger", rather they feel a more or less constant compulsion to eat.
Consider a horse in a field, eating hay. Consider the horse in the field at
my barn, at the bottom of the hill where he cannot see the water tank. He
feels thirsty. He lifts his head, and walks directly to the water tank and
drinks.
This horse has just engaged in a process of thought. He was thirsty. He
"thought" of the need for water to quench his thirst, the location of the
water, and his location in relationship to the water, then proceeded
directly from point (a) to point (b). This is abstract thought. It
requires that the horse be able to think of something that is not
immediately present before him (the water) and further to have a map within
his head on which he can plot his location relative to the water source.
This behavior is volitional, not reactive. It depends upon a decision by
the horse to go and drink now, rather than later. Horses with free access
to water do not have a "set point" at which they invariably go to drink.
Sometimes they will drink large amounts, sometimes only a few sips.
Sneze
Bill - Willow Creek Farm
process was so advanced, I would think that he would learn to ration
his hay so that it lasts between feedings.
Our horses are not from the wild - they are so far removed from that
past that it never existed for them. Yet they continue to behave as
though they were - they have not evolved mentally.
"I'm hungry so I'll eat (but better eat it all before something
takes it away).
Bill
WCF
Joel B Levin
Snezewort <Snezewort <Snez...@gnn.com>> wrote:
|This horse has just engaged in a process of thought. He was thirsty. He
|"thought" of the need for water to quench his thirst, the location of the
|water, and his location in relationship to the water, then proceeded
|directly from point (a) to point (b). This is abstract thought. It
|requires that the horse be able to think of something that is not
|immediately present before him (the water) and further to have a map within
|his head on which he can plot his location relative to the water source.
I disagree. It's no more useful than the hunger-based description. At some
level the knowledge of where he is in relationship to the source of water is
in his brain, but I don't see why any abstract, or even conscious, thinking
is involved in his getting a drink.
/JBL
--
Nets: le...@bbn.com |
or j...@levin.mv.com|
pots: (617)873-3463 | "I gotta go."
ARS: KD1ON | -- I. Shoales
Snezewort
In article <3125f4cf...@quartz.mv.com> Joel B Levin wrote:
>I disagree. It's no more useful than the hunger-based description. At
>some level the knowledge of where he is in relationship to the source of
>water is in his brain, but I don't see why any abstract, or even conscious,
>thinking is involved in his getting a drink.
The knowledge of his location in relationship to the water is in itself an
abstract thought. It is a map, a simplified mental representation of his
whereabouts. Abstract by definition.
Likewise, the awareness of water, which is not present before him, is an
abstract thought. The ability to think of something that is not immediately
present is the ability to think abstractly.
It is not equivalent to the ability to contemplate the meaning of life or
one's place in the universe. It is, however, an essential skill for an
animal that needs to drink water to stay alive.
Sneze
jaz
>By ascribing to the belief that if you think something the horse will do it
>you place the responsibilty for that trot on the horse when it is the rider
>who bears responsibility for the horse's performance. I can visualize a
>brilliant trot all I want but if I don't ride up to the visualization,
>I'm not going to get it.
In this particular instance, you must be at the level of your
visualization. One cannot ride beyond one's anatomical abilities and we
do not ask you or the horse to go past your level of competency.
"Think" of the best and you will begin to attain it. If you ask little
of yourself and your horse you will achieve little. This is true in all
forms of sports. Play with a pro tennis player and your game will
improve, think about the best rides you are able to attain and your
riding will get better.
MANY other examples can be involved here: learning out to hit a
baseball takes years of *seeing* through the ball to the outfield.
Learning to golf takes the kind of visualization of swinging and letting
the ball become an extension of the end of your club. Sometimes learning
the sitting trot involves letting the forces of nature take over and
your mind becoming very sensual to the movements of the horse. It takes
an open mind to practice this and an active imagination.
snip...
>I do believe that horses have the capacity for thought, of the horse
>variety. I also think that they have emotions, fear certainly comes to
>mind. But if you place lofty illusions of granduer on your animal's
>abilities you rob them of the chance to be what they truly are and
>yourself of the chance to assist them in becoming their best.
>
>Sandy
>and
>Lexus
Sandy ( and others?) Lofty illusions of granduer? No, wanting to do
the best as thought of by masters who want more from riding than just
getting on a horse and going from point "a" to point "b". Why has
dressage survived all these many centuries? Not for just the ability to
ride dressage, it is kept alive by the people who want it to be a
*Living ART*. If you want to art to live a long time it has to have
substance and a deeper meaning than just riding. It has to have
"FEELING" and to know what feeling is you and your horse had better be
in tune. In tune as much as any music you will ever hear and even
touch. Think about it some more.
jaz
John Hasler
> I disagree. It's no more useful than the hunger-based description. At some
> level the knowledge of where he is in relationship to the source of water is
> in his brain, but I don't see why any abstract, or even conscious, thinking
> is involved in his getting a drink.
The same line of reasoning can be used to conclude that you don't think.
Some people, you and Terry included, seem to define thinking as "whatever
it is that people do and animals don't". Others use a more useful defintion.
Obhorsey: I've got to get on the ball and start working the horses more.
The sun is rising North of the old barn again. This is signal from my
personal Stonehenge that spring is coming, and my excuse of cold weather
is wearing thin.
--
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
jgha...@win.bright.net Do with it what you will.
Terry von Gease
>Joel B Levin writes:
>> I disagree. It's no more useful than the hunger-based description. At some
>> level the knowledge of where he is in relationship to the source of water is
>> in his brain, but I don't see why any abstract, or even conscious, thinking
>> is involved in his getting a drink.
>The same line of reasoning can be used to conclude that you don't think.
>Some people, you and Terry included, seem to define thinking as "whatever
>it is that people do and animals don't". Others use a more useful defintion.
Rather pragmatic, but all in all not a bad definition in that it would
seem to meet the basic criteria for a definition such that it includes
all that is X and excludes all that is not X. It is, unfortunately,
circular but not viciously so.
--
Terry You'll get further with a smile and a gun
than just a smile.
ra...@lehigh.edu
<big snip>
>
>This horse has just engaged in a process of . . . abstract thought. It
>immediately present before him (the water) and further to have a map within
>his head on which he can plot his location relative to the water source.
>
>the horse to go and drink now, rather than later. Horses with free access
>to water do not have a "set point" at which they invariably go to drink.
>Sometimes they will drink large amounts, sometimes only a few sips.
>
>Sneze
Consider also: I'm leading Cory past General's stall. Cory has a sweat
sheet on. General has a blanket on, and it's been too warm for a blanket
for two or three hours. General grabs Cory's sweat sheet and pulls. He
releases it, finds another place to grab it, and pulls again. (Cory does
not respond; "Uncle General" has lots of privileges.) But I respond after
a minute. I go into General's stall and remove his blanket. Later I
notice that those two pulls had no adverse effect on the fabric of the
sweatsheet.
Now, if this were a truly isolated incident, I'd have been creating some
nice fiction. But I have seen General reach into Steve's grooming box
(General's brushes), pull out the blue plastic curry, drop the curry on
the floor, grasp its wrist-strap between his lips, rub the curry on the
floor twice or three times, and then let go and stand waiting. Hmmm.
Rosemarie, in PA, counting levels of abstraction.
user...@jax.jaxnet.com
> user...@jax.jaxnet.com wrote:
>
> >By ascribing to the belief that if you think something the horse will do it
> >you place the responsibilty for that trot on the horse when it is the rider
> >who bears responsibility for the horse's performance. I can visualize a
> >brilliant trot all I want but if I don't ride up to the visualization,
> >I'm not going to get it.
>
> In this particular instance, you must be at the level of your
> visualization. One cannot ride beyond one's anatomical abilities and we
> do not ask you or the horse to go past your level of competency.
I think I snipped
> "Think" of the best and you will begin to attain it. If you ask little
> of yourself and your horse you will achieve little. This is true in all
> forms of sports. Play with a pro tennis player and your game will
> improve, think about the best rides you are able to attain and your
> riding will get better.
>
snip
> >I do believe that horses have the capacity for thought, of the horse
> >variety. I also think that they have emotions, fear certainly comes to
> >mind. But if you place lofty illusions of granduer on your animal's
> >abilities you rob them of the chance to be what they truly are and
> >yourself of the chance to assist them in becoming their best.
> >
> >Sandy
> >and
> >Lexus
>
> Sandy ( and others?) Lofty illusions of granduer? No, wanting to do
> the best as thought of by masters who want more from riding than just
> getting on a horse and going from point "a" to point "b". Why has
> dressage survived all these many centuries? Not for just the ability to
> ride dressage, it is kept alive by the people who want it to be a
> *Living ART*. If you want to art to live a long time it has to have
> substance and a deeper meaning than just riding. It has to have
> "FEELING" and to know what feeling is you and your horse had better be
> in tune. In tune as much as any music you will ever hear and even
> touch.
I don't remember voicing any criticism of dressage, or claiming
that feel was not an important factor in riding. If you have a post
that attributes that to my name I would very much like to see it.
>Think about it some more.
>
> jaz
Well, I may think about it more if you rewrite it yet again, but this
rewording is probably suffcient. I agree that visualization is a useful
process for the rider, what I did not agree with was your orginal post
which states that somehow the horse senses your visualization. You
visualize, your riding (with work) improves, the horse goes better.
You visualize, you don't work, your horse doesn't get better, next you're
posting HELP! My horse won't stop ;-) A horse does not sense thoughts,
he responds to stimulus.
Jazz wrote:
>>>I have been taught to ride with mental images, to think the movement is
>>>the best it can be and to believe that the horse will *sense* this and
>>>have an easier time learning the process. All good trainers *know* what
>>>they are teaching the horse and the mental vibes they hold over the
>>>horse are very real. The neophyte does not have this at his disposal
>>>most of the time and the training takes longer because they can not
>>>visualize the final process the horse needs to learn with. It takes
>>>longer for the *human* to learn most training than it does the horse.
>>>With a trainer who *knows the mental image* the horse will learn faster
>>>and his ability sense the rider=BCs imagery is very real. Is this
>>>thinking for the horse? I believe it is.
Happy Trails,
Sandy
(Lexus is out is the barn visualizing breakfast)
Richard Botterill
>
>In article <4fnpr2$b...@cocoa.brown.edu>, jaz <Jaz...@AOL.com> wrote:
(snip)
>> Intelligence, now there's the differing quotient, or brilliance to call
>> it another name. snip Some horses are brilliant, most are not. So
>> a horse has the ability to picture his desire, act or not act upon it
>> according to his intelligence.
>
>Picturing the desire is conceptual thought. It is detached from the desire
>itself.
>The horse does not *think* he is hungry, he *is* hungry. He does not form
>an idea about it or have notions about how nice it would be to eat. He simply
>feels hunger and proceeds to do things that have successfully satisfied that
>need in the past.
In most cases, yes. However I watched my horse do something one night at
the barn that I would _not_ have believed if I hadn't personally witnessed
it. He'd been a little over ideal weight and had had his hay cut back so
there was none left in the usual corner of the stall where it is always
fed. As I was finishing up at the barn and walking back towards his stall
I noticed him watching for me (very usual for him), but then he turned in
his stall (still keeping an eye on me) and walked (very ostentatiously, it
seemed...I'll probably get flamed for anthropomorphism here) to the corner
where the hay is usually fed, put his nose down and sort of sniffed around
the general area, raised his head a bit, pawed at the area several times,
and then turned his head to look directly at me. I _had_ to interpret this
as a request for hay, but _don't_ ask me how he put this series of actions
together. I had never seen him do it before, and he hasn't done it since,
although he does nuzzle my hand to "ask" for treats. The nuzzling I _can_
understand, as I at one time gave him some treats after he did this, and
he learned after several repetitions that I would do this.
(snip)
>A horse reacts to you in a certain way because the s/he has been
>taught a series of cues that lead him to respond to those cues in the
>way that has ended up either in overt reward or lessening of physical
>discomfort, again he takes the path that has most sucessfully fullfilled
>his needs in the past. If you trying to suggest that the horse has anything
>other than a rudimentary capacity for thought in this regard, what
>evidence do you have to offer in support of your claim?
>
>snip
>> Go out and think of an image to your horse, say it is the best trot you
>> have ever ridden, ride the way you picture the image. I assure you,
>> your horse will travel better. Jane Savoie uses these techniques of
>> *postcard* riding with her horses, and has book out explaining their
>> use and more on the image control you can use on your own self.
>>
>I don't think Jane Savoie's book implys that the horse reads your mind,
>is able to grasp your visualiztion of *the best trot* and then produces
>it for you. She speaks about the rider's ability to influence thier own
>performance and with that, influence the performance of the horse.
We're really into the realm of sport psychology for the rider here. I form
mental images of how I will ride a hunter course, closing my eyes and doing
the course in my mind to visualize the pace, the track, the number of
strides between fences, whether I will look for the slightly longer spot
so we can flow into the line, etc. All of this is to influence _my_ riding
and thus affect the way my horse will go. I think it would be possible to
form the mental image of the best trot you have ever experienced, compare
it to what you are presently feeling happening, and use the appropriate
aids to request the horse to produce that best trot, but the responsibility
ultimately falls back upon the rider, as Sandy states below. It is,
however, a useful tool for the rider to have.
>
>By ascribing to the belief that if you think something the horse will do it
>you place the responsibilty for that trot on the horse when it is the rider
>who bears responsibility for the horse's performance. I can visualize a
>brilliant trot all I want but if I don't ride up to the visualization,
>I'm not going to get it.
>
>I do believe that horses have the capacity for thought, of the horse
>variety. I also think that they have emotions, fear certainly comes to
>mind. But if you place lofty illusions of granduer on your animal's
>abilities you rob them of the chance to be what they truly are and
>yourself of the chance to assist them in becoming their best.
I guess what Sandy is saying is that it takes more than just the
visualization...the horse cannot read our thoughts. But if the visualization
clarifies the type, intensity, and timing of the aids we use, then the
horse can more clearly feel what we are requesting through their tactile
senses and thus respond more appropriately.
Richard Botterill
bott...@technet.assiniboinec.mb.ca
Technologies and Environmental Industries Division
Assiniboine Community College
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
jaz
>Well, I may think about it more if you rewrite it yet again, but this
>rewording is probably suffcient. I agree that visualization is a useful
>process for the rider, what I did not agree with was your orginal post
>which states that somehow the horse senses your visualization.
Okay, we agree on something <G>. Now take that a step further, you
teach yourself the objects of your visualization through instruction and
better oneself as an equestrian. At some time thought and action become
one, and you no longer have to demand your body do things, actions
(aids) in the saddle become second nature. You no longer have to think
about which hand does what and which leg to push with, your actions in
the saddle are as easy as standing and breatheing. Riding is thinking,
thinking is riding.
You reach a level of competency, and then you ask your "new" horse to
perform a task. The horse has had other instruction, your new method is
a problematic for the horse because he does not understand what you are
trying to do. Do you think if you have the inner picture of this task
in your mind (clearly) that the horse will have an easier time learning
the "aids" you are instructing him in? Do you think he will in a
sensual way (ie. touch, smell, hearing) try to listen to you? Will the
mental attitude you portray help you teach this task at hand? Just
question what you feel in the saddle from the horse.
My thought is: if you have the task clearly defined in your brain (a
picture) the horse has the mental capacity to understand better and
quicker. If you cannot think clearly and have no picture in your mind
how the exercise or task should be excecuted the horse will have a hard
time completing it regardless of what kind of a rider you are. But, my
thought is that "good riders" visualize everything while riding. That
may be the single most important thing dividing good riders from the
every day rider. A clear mental picture of what you are doing is
somehow sensed, dare I say *vibed* by the horse, I'm sure of it.
>You visualize, your riding (with work) improves, the horse goes
better.
>You visualize, you don't work, your horse doesn't get better, next you're
>posting HELP! My horse won't stop ;-) A horse does not sense thoughts,
>he responds to stimulus.
Not if you have control over your riding in the first place does any of
this happen to you. The stimulus is the clear mental images you contain
and use while riding. Have you ever just stopped your horse by heaving
a sigh and saying to yourself (not out loud) "ho"? The horse "knew"
what you wanted, and very clearly without words, reins, seat, or outward
motion on your behalf. <BG> It's neat, too.
>Sandy
>(Lexus is out is the barn visualizing breakfast)
Yes, I think they think food is "el numero uno" too! Picture this:Food! Yes, we see it! Now hand it over Ms. Kodak.
Jane Kilberg
All these examples are not "Abstract Reasoning or Thinking"
1. THe horse deciding to go to the water isn't an abstract thought. His
body triggered thirst/play what ever. He smells water and knows were it
is from either previous experience or by smell if he has never been in
that area before.
2. The blanket story is cute, Rosemarie, but again, it isn't abstract
thinking. It's play, funtime, something to do. It is +you+ who were
thinking that General is trying to pull off Cory's blanket because it is
too warm.
3. Now, I've got a dog that will go get his brush every time he wants me
to brush him. Gee, now how many times have I brushed him with that object
that makes him feel good. Cause and effect here.
No abstract thinking involved. General knows the curry means brushing,
grooming him by his past experience of your use of it on him. It's an
experience response...that is all...not abstract thinking.
Abstract thinking is putting events in order to figure out what
eventually may or may not happen. Experience does not necessarily figure
in abstract thinking.
Here's an abstract exercise for you. You come to a pond that is green in
color. Would you drink from it? Would your horse?
Answer: You: Nope Horse: Yup
down the sunny trails....
Jane Kilberg
Rocking Double J Ranch
Sundance 500 Newsletter € the appaloosa appreciation society
Jane Kilberg
bott...@technet.assiniboinec.mb.ca writes:
>I noticed him watching for me (very usual for him), but then he turned in
>his stall (still keeping an eye on me) and walked (very ostentatiously, it
>seemed...I'll probably get flamed for anthropomorphism here) to the corner
>where the hay is usually fed, put his nose down and sort of sniffed around
>the general area, raised his head a bit, pawed at the area several times,
>and then turned his head to look directly at me. I _had_ to interpret this
>as a request for hay, but _don't_ ask me how he put this series of actions
>together. I had never seen him do it before, and he hasn't done it since,
>although he does nuzzle my hand to "ask" for treats. The nuzzling I _can_
>understand, as I at one time gave him some treats after he did this, and
>he learned after several repetitions that I would do this.
Naw Richard, I won't flame you, but realize that your interpretation
"request for hay" is correct, but your reasoning is a bit off. He knows
you feed him hay. He knows where you put the hay. His body is use to hay,
particularly the amount you feed him. His body is wanting the usual
amount of hay you feed him.
You short-changed him; that is, his body was short-changed, so he went
back to the area to look for more, pawed (anxiousness) then looked at you
(he already knows you give him hay-if you don't, he knows a 2 legged
critter gives him hay, and you are a two-legged critter).
Once he realized he wasn't getting the hay, he accepted this experience
and remembered it in future days. Horse said; "Gee, guess when the hay is
gone, it don't matter if I want more or not, that is it- finito!" Your
horse learned through experience-caused reasoning, not abstract reasoning.
Sorry, Richard this is not abstract reasoning-thinking. <g>