A donkey is standing at equal distance from two bales of hay; the two masses of fodder are mathematically alike in size, shape, color, fragrance, quality, etc.
Unless the animal, certain philosophers said, was able to "make a choice" of his own, he would remain motionless between the two bales whose attraction would be perfectly balanced. He would, like some celestial bodies, be held suspended by two forces which would not allow him to turn to the right nor to the left. He would rationally have to starve if attraction were a force exerting itself from the outside exclusively.
Yet no donkey placed in such a situation will fail to make an immediate choice. He will turn to one of the bales and start eating it.
Even if we imagine a philosophising donkey reasoning as follows:
"The two bales are equally attractive. Hence it makes no difference which one I start with. Let us begin with either."
Even then, he will have to "make a choice," altho his selection of one of the bales seems to be due entirely to "chance."
Chance in the Discard. Psychological research has eliminated chance as a factor in human behavior, and whether our donkey starts with the right or with the left bale, an analyst will insist that there are reasons why he picks out that one bale to be eaten first.
Laboratory dogs which have supplied solutions for so many psychological difficulties, have proved of service in this case too.
If the slightest surgical operation has been performed on one side of a dog's brain, he becomes unable to move in a straight line.