Do Na'vi "control" those animals?

[Mithcoriel]

So, one thing that always kinda bothered me, is: What exactly happens when you make tsahaylu with an animal?
Do you mentally enslave this animal, forcing it to do your bidding, your will overriding its own? I certainly hope not. Cause that would totally kill the idea of "being in harmony with nature" and not being prejudiced against other species, like humans who think they are better than the other animals and the masters of earth. For one thing, I really don't like Jake's line after he caught his Ikran: "That's right, you're mine now." But I forgive that cause I'm assuming that at this point of the movie he's still a silly arrogant tawtute who hasn't entirely grasped the respect-for-nature thing yet.

What I would guess actually happens when you tsahaylu with an animal is, for one thing, if the animal was wild before, like an Ikran, the tsahaylu allows the Ikran to see into your mind and understand that you're not a predator out to get it, or any threat at all, so it stops fighting you. In other words, it tames the animal. Humans can do the same thing, but it takes much longer. They need to keep a newly caught wild animal locked up for weeks, slowly adjusting it to humans, till by and by, it learns to trust humans. (Easier to do if you raise the animal from a young age. And for some animals, it never works at all.)
The second thing I think tsahaylu does is simply communication. I'm assuming that when you think "walk", that doesn't automatically control the horse's legs forcing them to walk, and it also doesn't manipulate the animals will into falsely assuming that it wants to walk when really it doesn't. It just knows that that's what you want it to do and so it obeys. In other words, no different than a human moving the reins in a certain way. Only, with humans, once again, they need to train an animal for a long time for it to obey commands, cause they need to teach the animal the "language", so it understands what the human actually wants when he moves the reins in a certain way.

So why does the animal obey the Na'vi? My guess would be it's cause Na'vi, being more intelligent than the other animals, have, shall we say, more ambitions. If you tell a horse to walk, it obeys cause it has nothing better to do. It doesn't have these huge philosophical thoughts that make it wonder what the meaning of life is and wether it should walk or not.

Do you think a Na'vi would be able to order a horse to kill itself? (If there was a way to do it without killing the Na'vi rider. Or, heck, even if he died as well in the process.) Let's say I'm bonded with a horse, and I tell it to stick its hoof into a meat grinder, would it obey? (assuming it knew what would happen. Not just out of ignorance cause it didn't realize it would get injured.) I hope it wouldn't, of course. Cause as I said, I hope animals retain their free will.
The closest example we have here is Jake riding his Ikran to the Toruk, making it do something it normally wouldn't want to do. But I'm assuming the Ikran was able to feel Jake's confidence or at least somehow understand that they needed to do this.

Ha 'upe aynga fpìl ? / So what do you guys think?

[Kìte'eyä Aungia]

So what do you guys think?

Well, I don't see how you can explain the fact that a bonded animal will attack giant predators or run into explosions and gunfire, etc. without assuming some kind of "mental enslavement". I mean, our domesticated animals are rarely loyal enough to do that kind of thing even when exposed to humans from birth. And we've been developing training methods and using selective breeding for thousands of years.

Do you mentally enslave this animal, forcing it to do your bidding, your will overriding its own? I certainly hope not. Cause that would totally kill the idea of "being in harmony with nature" and not being prejudiced against other species, like humans who think they are better than the other animals and the masters of earth.

I think you're setting up an impossible standard here. Regardless of how exactly the bond works, it seems to be a relationship that animals on Pandora naturally engage in, so how does it take one out of harmony with nature?

Prejudice against other species is pretty much mandatory at some level or another because unless you're a plant or a photosynthetic bacteria or something, for you to live some other kind of life has to die.

For one thing, I really don't like Jake's line after he caught his Ikran: "That's right, you're mine now." But I forgive that cause I'm assuming that at this point of the movie he's still a silly arrogant tawtute who hasn't entirely grasped the respect-for-nature thing yet.

Yeah, I always thought of that as a very un-Na'vi thing to say as well, though of course it was trying to kill him at the time. The bond, at least with an Ikran, seems to be more about symbiosis (you choose an Ikran, but it must also choose you) than domination from the Na'vi perspective.

[Mithcoriel]

Well, I don't see how you can explain the fact that a bonded animal will attack giant predators or run into explosions and gunfire, etc. without assuming some kind of "mental enslavement". I mean, our domesticated animals are rarely loyal enough to do that kind of thing even when exposed to humans from birth.

Well, do we really know the animals would obey under such extreme examples? The only example we have so far is Jake's Ikran obeying him when he goes after the Toruk, don't we? What gunfire? You mean when the Na'vi attack the gunships on their animals?
(Are you sure animals don't go with us into battles? Didn't humans used to use horses in wars, before they had tanks and guns and all that?)
Well there's a couple of explanations. One might be that the animals don't fully understand the danger. They have instincts that tell them not to feed themselves to predators and the like, but do they have in-built fear of gunships?

In a book I once read, a person rode a horse directly toward a leopard. Okay, so it was just fiction, and I don't know how much the author knew about horses, wether a real horse would ever do that, but at least the idea she had for why it did that was interesting.: the horse was panic-running. Its instincts told it "there's a leopard, so I have to run". But since horses aren't the geniuses of the universe, the horse ran straight toward the leopard, cause that was where the human was guiding it.

Another is that, while human training may be a good analogy, a tsahaylu-command is bound to be more convincing no matter what, cause the animal can see how important it is to you to do whatever you wanna do, and maybe feel your confidence that it won't end in disaster. Who knows how much information the animal gets from you through the bond, maybe the animals of the Na'vi warriors even understood the complete concept of how important it was to defeat these humans to defend their homes.

Regardless of how exactly the bond works, it seems to be a relationship that animals on Pandora naturally engage in, so how does it take one out of harmony with nature?

When I say harmony with nature, I mean the type where you recycle your trash and make sure the environment isn't hurt, you acknowledge that you are just a mere animal too, not some kind of godly higher being, and that animals deserve respect too, they're not just there for you to exploit, and you're not surrounded by sad lifeless technology cities but hang around in green areas a lot. I'm not talking about the "well killing, plundering and raping is natural, so let's do it" kind of natural.
Also, are you implying that even before the intelligent Na'vi evolved, it was natural for animals to enslave each other via tsahaylu? Which animal would enslave which?

Actually, come to think of it, that leads me to another point: What do animals use tsahaylu for in the wild? Apparently for bonding purposes, for mates to feel a sense of belonging to each other, and possibly for communication. I don't see any purpose for forcing your will on the other being, so why should a Na'vi be able to do that? I mean if that's what they do to the animals, it also sort of raises the question: can you try to control your partner when you're mating with them? Why shouldn't it work here?
Also, it seems strange on a purely neurological level: if your queue were ensnaring and wrapping around the animal's entire brain, I could imagine you controlling it. But what you're actually doing is sending messages in, which the brain theoretically could or could not obey, no different than the visual info from the eyes or the auditive info from the ears, albeit probably a lot more complex. Why should an animal's brain evolve in a way that whatever information comes in through the queue must be obeyed 100%, all other functions of the brain (except the most basic like keeping the heartbeat going) overriden and replaced by whatever order comes in through the queue?

Prejudice against other species is pretty much mandatory at some level or another because unless you're a plant or a photosynthetic bacteria or something, for you to live some other kind of life has to die.

But the Na'vi respect the animals they kill, and thank them in their ritual speech. To me, that's not prejudice.

Anyway, if it really is mental enslavement, that also raises the question to what extent. Obviously your queue connects to the animal's brain, not directly to the body. It's not like you could move the animal's legs, and then the animal looks down at itself in surprise wondering "Hey, why did my legs just move?" It at the very least goes through the brain first. But even there it could be purely physical: do you ensnare the animal's motor areas, paralyzing the functions you don't want it to perform, forcing muscles to move you want to move? Or do you sort of "force the animal to want" the same things you want? Is it maybe like hypnosis?

Another analogy that might help: imagine the humans, for whatever strange reason, made a horse-avatar. Meaning Jake, or whoever, could actually get into a link, and connect to a horse body, and run around in it. If a Na'vi then bonded with him, would he become a slave, unable to disobey the orders?

The bond, at least with an Ikran, seems to be more about symbiosis (you choose an Ikran, but it must also choose you)

But how is it different to a horse? After all, Jake's ikran obeyed him when he said "shut up and fly straight", so how's this different from a horse obeying him when he says where to go? And Jake's Ikran is, after all, the example we have where the animal directly approaches a predator when its rider asks it to.

I'm not ruling out that the horses are "inferior" to the Na'vi in the sense that they'll really just blindly obey the commands, but just cause they're less intelligent, less proud etc.

[Kìte'eyä Aungia]

Well, do we really know the animals would obey under such extreme examples? The only example we have so far is Jake's Ikran obeying him when he goes after the Toruk, don't we? What gunfire? You mean when the Na'vi attack the gunships on their animals?

That and the cavalry charge on the RDA firing line.

(Are you sure animals don't go with us into battles? Didn't humans used to use horses in wars, before they had tanks and guns and all that?)

Of course animals have gone with us into battle, but again, our war animals are the results of thousands of years of selective breeding and violent training methods on animals that were exposed to humans from birth, and keeping those animals calm was still an issue (I believe loud noises, cannon fire, and explosions are all known for spooking horses).

Well there's a couple of explanations. One might be that the animals don't fully understand the danger. They have instincts that tell them not to feed themselves to predators and the like, but do they have in-built fear of gunships?

I would think loud noises, explosions, seeing their fellow animals dying, and gigantic flying things are pretty much universal built-in fears for large animals.

Another is that, while human training may be a good analogy, a tsahaylu-command is bound to be more convincing no matter what, cause the animal can see how important it is to you to do whatever you wanna do, and maybe feel your confidence that it won't end in disaster. Who knows how much information the animal gets from you through the bond, maybe the animals of the Na'vi warriors even understood the complete concept of how important it was to defeat these humans to defend their homes.

Since we don't really know how intelligent the animals are or how exactly the bond works, we can come up with any number of explanations along these lines. But how is forcing your own emotions and feelings of desperation into the mind of another animal to make it do what you want not a kind of "mental enslavement"?

When I say harmony with nature, I mean the type where you recycle your trash and make sure the environment isn't hurt, you acknowledge that you are just a mere animal too, not some kind of godly higher being, and that animals deserve respect too, they're not just there for you to exploit, and you're not surrounded by sad lifeless technology cities but hang around in green areas a lot. I'm not talking about the "well killing, plundering and raping is natural, so let's do it" kind of natural.

I see. Well, as I said above, even if the bond does work through some form of "mental enslavement", the relationship the Na'vi have with their animals seems to be a very natural symbiotic relationship. The Na'vi provide food, protection, etc. and in return the animals are occasionally "mentally enslaved" by the Na'vi with a relatively low chance of danger. The Na'vi certainly act respectfully towards the animals, mourning for them and so on.

Also, are you implying that even before the intelligent Na'vi evolved, it was natural for animals to enslave each other via tsahaylu? Which animal would enslave which?

No, just that however the relationship evolved, it is a natural one. Of course, that's tautological.

Actually, come to think of it, that leads me to another point: What do animals use tsahaylu for in the wild? Apparently for bonding purposes, for mates to feel a sense of belonging to each other, and possibly for communication. I don't see any purpose for forcing your will on the other being, so why should a Na'vi be able to do that?

Because it's of great benefit to the Na'vi and to the animals that they would control. Think of how much better off early humans and their domesticated animals would have been if we had been able to breed domesticates that we could control with our minds.

I mean if that's what they do to the animals, it also sort of raises the question: can you try to control your partner when you're mating with them? Why shouldn't it work here?

Intelligence is a factor (this one would be my guess)? Na'vi are rigged to control whatever they're connected to while most other animals are rigged to be controlled?

Also, it seems strange on a purely neurological level . . . Why should an animal's brain evolve in a way that whatever information comes in through the queue must be obeyed 100%, all other functions of the brain (except the most basic like keeping the heartbeat going) overriden and replaced by whatever order comes in through the queue?

Because it's of great benefit to the Na'vi and to the animals that they would control. . . .

Prejudice against other species is pretty much mandatory at some level or another because unless you're a plant or a photosynthetic bacteria or something, for you to live some other kind of life has to die.

But the Na'vi respect the animals they kill, and thank them in their ritual speech. To me, that's not prejudice.

I don't agree. They take the lives of animals without permission or provocation while they would not do the same thing to another Na'vi. Therefore, they are treating non-Na'vi animals differently than they treat Na'vi, which I would say is a form of prejudice. 

Anyway, if it really is mental enslavement, that also raises the question to what extent.

. . .

Another analogy that might help: imagine the humans, for whatever strange reason, made a horse-avatar. Meaning Jake, or whoever, could actually get into a link, and connect to a horse body, and run around in it. If a Na'vi then bonded with him, would he become a slave, unable to disobey the orders?

Maybe?

[Mithcoriel]

(Are you sure animals don't go with us into battles? Didn't humans used to use horses in wars, before they had tanks and guns and all that?)

Of course animals have gone with us into battle, but again, our war animals are the results of thousands of years of selective breeding and violent training methods on animals that were exposed to humans from birth, and keeping those animals calm was still an issue (I believe loud noises, cannon fire, and explosions are all known for spooking horses). .

Yes, but what are those thousands of years of breeding and training good for? To remove animal's natural fear of humans and the like. (particularly the irrational, unjustified fears. But in this case of course the fear would be justified) All this is done in one second with tsahaylu. Forming tsahaylu, it would seem, allows you to communicate with the animal, something which is completely impossible for humans, and possibly to explain to it (albeit maybe in a primitive way) why you want it to do these things.

I would think loud noises, explosions, seeing their fellow animals dying, and gigantic flying things are pretty much universal built-in fears for large animals.

Loud noises I agree with. But not seeing your fellow animals dying. When cows are led into the slaughterhouse single-file, they see the cows in front of them drop dead and just keep moving. They don't understand what's going on.

But how is forcing your own emotions and feelings of desperation into the mind of another animal to make it do what you want not a kind of "mental enslavement"?

Well I was assuming that you're not forcing your emotions on them. That the ikran cares for you as a friend and sees "My rider really wants this, and I want him to be happy", not that the ikran is somehow forced into wanting the same thing as you, as if being manipulated into it.

Also, it seems strange on a purely neurological level . . . Why should an animal's brain evolve in a way that whatever information comes in through the queue must be obeyed 100%, all other functions of the brain (except the most basic like keeping the heartbeat going) overriden and replaced by whatever order comes in through the queue?

Because it's of great benefit to the Na'vi and to the animals that they would control. . .

.

No, that's not how evolution works. That's far too planning-ahead. It would be like wild animals not developing fear, so that one day humans will turn them into pets. There's bound to be disadvantages to such disobedience before there's advantage. And in order for Na'vi to use this connection, it must already be there. It's not like the Na'vi show up, think "Oh bummer, I can't control this animal via its tsahaylu", and then the animal's DNA thinks "Hey, that would be really useful, if I could get enslaved, I'll modify myself so my kids will have that."
If animals were so receptive to being enslaved like that, they would have been taken advantage of soon enough. Predators would have been able to kill prey much larger than them, by jumping on their backs and succeeding to form tsahaylu, and then forcing the prey animal to kill itself. Small parasites would have developed that specialize in enslaving random animals via the queue and then forcing them to behave in ways that spreads the parasite or its children.

I don't agree. They take the lives of animals without permission or provocation while they would not do the same thing to another Na'vi. Therefore, they are treating non-Na'vi animals differently than they treat Na'vi, which I would say is a form of prejudice.

Well I wouldn't call that prejudice, it's just a matter of doing what's necessary for you to survive. Maybe I should use a different word for it. But my point is: humans are arrogant. They (at least used to) think animals don't deserve any form of compassion, that you can just torture an animal any way you want, and their only purpose in life is to serve mankind, as food or work forces. Humans had trouble accepting the theory of evolution, for example, because they found it so insulting to suggest that they were animals too, as animals, to them, were inferior. A Na'vi might kill an animal, but he acknowlegdes that this is just part of the natural cycle, he recognizes the animal as a brother, and doesn't have these delusions of grandeur that humans have.

[Tsamsiyu Atsteu]

Interesting theories, ma 'elyan. It must be mutually beneficial, or else it would never happen. I think that tsahaylu allows both animal and Na'vi a unique, mutually benefical mental and emotional but also physical bond of sorts - remember how Neytiri said "feel her strong legs?" to Jake? I think there's some very deep connection because they can obviously sense the animal's body and breath, among other things. There is no domination, but a perfect unity between rider and animal. As for the animal feeling fear in battle, I look at the countless examples of horses in human warefare. They are prey animals but can with proper training and a solid, steady (not nervous for example) ride be coaxed into doing tasks not normally in their nature, such as charging into battle (don't forget that dressage was used before tanks and such to utilize the horse as a weapon to ground forces, kicking, rearing and lashing out at the rider's direction) or doing something that might make it nervous such as crossing a stream or going past a scary looking stack of things. I know this from years of handling horses and training them using "Join up" a la the Horse whisperer. No coercion. No force. Just using nature. This is how I picture tsahaylu, as perfect unity.

[Kìte'eyä Aungia]

Yes, but what are those thousands of years of breeding and training good for? To remove animal's natural fear of humans and the like. (particularly the irrational, unjustified fears. But in this case of course the fear would be justified) All this is done in one second with tsahaylu.

Maybe, maybe not. It seems to me that my theory definitely explains why the bonded animals act the way they do (because the Na'vi completely controls the animal) whereas yours requires an extra assumption that the act of bonding would remove "the irrational, unjustified fears" from the animal. Wouldn't this require the bonded animal to be incredibly intelligent? What if the animal did gain an understanding of the Na'vi's goals and intentions but didn't care? Is such a thing possible?

Loud noises I agree with. But not seeing your fellow animals dying. When cows are led into the slaughterhouse single-file, they see the cows in front of them drop dead and just keep moving. They don't understand what's going on.

Well yes, I suppose some of those fears do depend on the animal, but fear of loud noises and fiery explosions are fairly universal are they not?

But how is forcing your own emotions and feelings of desperation into the mind of another animal to make it do what you want not a kind of "mental enslavement"?

Well I was assuming that you're not forcing your emotions on them. That the ikran cares for you as a friend and sees "My rider really wants this, and I want him to be happy", not that the ikran is somehow forced into wanting the same thing as you, as if being manipulated into it.

But why would the Ikran care about the rider (especially seconds after it first met the rider)? And again, the bonded animal would to be incredibly intelligent (so as to actually understand its rider) or blindly loyal (complete loyalty to the desires of the rider despite not being intelligent enough to actually understand the rider).

No, that's not how evolution works. That's far too planning-ahead. It would be like wild animals not developing fear, so that one day humans will turn them into pets.

You're assuming that the relationship of the bond evolved before the Na'vi started living closely with the animals they ride. Let's say a queue system capable of a proto-bond developed that didn't give the rider complete control. The Na'vi start living with certain animals and using them as mounts, labor, etc. Eventually, the queue system evolves to the current state with the animal giving up more control to the Na'vi for the benefit of both.

There's bound to be disadvantages to such disobedience before there's advantage. And in order for Na'vi to use this connection, it must already be there. It's not like the Na'vi show up, think "Oh bummer, I can't control this animal via its tsahaylu", and then the animal's DNA thinks "Hey, that would be really useful, if I could get enslaved, I'll modify myself so my kids will have that."

Well, yeah, I guess this is basically what I'm suggesting. What's the problem with this. One animal has a mutation which allows the Na'vi bonding to it to have greater control. As a result, that animal/Na'vi pair is more successful than those without the mutation. The animal is more likely to survive and breed, or the Na'vi might notice the animal and breed it intentionally.

If animals were so receptive to being enslaved like that, they would have been taken advantage of soon enough . . .

Maybe, maybe not. I really do hope Cameron has thought out this kind of thing ahead of time. Maybe the next movie will tell us more about the evolutionary history of Pandora and Eywa especially (an intelligent entity which can apparently control any animal on the planet at will could throw a huge wrench in the works when trying to figure out how things evolved and why).

I don't agree. They take the lives of animals without permission or provocation while they would not do the same thing to another Na'vi. Therefore, they are treating non-Na'vi animals differently than they treat Na'vi, which I would say is a form of prejudice.

Well I wouldn't call that prejudice, it's just a matter of doing what's necessary for you to survive.

Agreed. That's what I started with in my first post.

Maybe I should use a different word for it. But my point is: humans are arrogant. They (at least used to) think animals don't deserve any form of compassion, that you can just torture an animal any way you want, and their only purpose in life is to serve mankind, as food or work forces. . . . A Na'vi might kill an animal, but he acknowlegdes that this is just part of the natural cycle, he recognizes the animal as a brother, and doesn't have these delusions of grandeur that humans have.

Well, you have to admit that deciding where to draw the line between reasons for killing that are arrogant and reasons for killing that aren't arrogant is problematic. There are groups of humans today who would point to the animal killing that the Na'vi engage in as arrogant despite their respect and recognition.

[Tsa'räni]

I think the movie suggests it is both a type of blending and a form of control by the Na'vi.

For blending, we see evidence of this in how Neytiri speaks when Jake first makes tsaheylu with the direhorse.  And it also seems to me like Neytiri is at least receiving some sensation when her banshee and the thanator are killed.  At the very least there is some feedback.

For control, the best example would be Jake's banshee diving on toruk.  That's just not going to happen without Jake in control because it almost certainly goes against every instinct the banshee has.  I'd say that's good evidence of some type of overriding control.

But I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.  It's just as respectable, if not moreso, to have that type of control and still not treat them as just another dumb animal.  And whatever level of feedback/blending they have with the animals may account for such an attitude.

[Ash]

One thing does come to my mind with this topic: If the experience would be something negative for the animals - why stay?

I don't remember the horses being stabled or fastened in any way, and the Ikran for sure are absolutely free. So if the experience of bonding, making Tsaheylu, being ridden by Na'vi does have nothing beneficial to the animals, why not leave at the first opportunity?

Of course there seems(at least with the Ikran) to be some kind of struggle for dominance, maybe to prove the worthiness of the rider? And as it is said, there is some kind of choice, the Na'vi don't march in and just pluck some Ikran of the rock for the new hunters. Instead the Na'vi has to feel some kind of resonance for an individual animal - and it has to respond, kind of like accepting the challenge.

So maybe there is something in connecting with a Na'vi that is beneficial to the animal, a feeling, a sense of purpose, a connection to something that makes the whole bigger then its parts, whatever, that is gained.


As for control - maybe it is not control in the sense of forcing the mount to do something, but more in the sense that the rider has to convince the mount that it is right. It is clearly visible that Jake's Ikran is nervous when gliding above Toruk, but maybe in this moment Jake fills it with his feeling of "it can be done". For this kind of "control", the rider has to be very stable and deeply convinced of what he is going to do so he can share his faith with his mount.

Edit 1: This would, for me, also be a possible explanation for the first very erratic seconds of Jakes flight. The Ikran has already accepted him as he calmly lets him sit on his back. Also, after these first seconds the Ikran flies perfectly stable as one would expect. So I would credit these first seconds of tumbling, rolling and almost plummeting to Jake being baffled and overwhelmed (after kind of being shoved over the edge by Neytiri) and projecting this to the Ikran. When Jake regains his composure, so does the Ikran.

Edit 2:

The closest example we have here is Jake riding his Ikran to the Toruk, making it do something it normally wouldn't want to do. But I'm assuming the Ikran was able to feel Jake's confidence or at least somehow understand that they needed to do this.

Just noticed that you wrote almost the same, so yes - that would be my theory as well.

[Kìte'eyä Aungia]

One thing does come to my mind with this topic: If the experience would be something negative for the animals - why stay?
. . .
So maybe there is something in connecting with a Na'vi that is beneficial to the animal, a feeling, a sense of purpose, a connection to something that makes the whole bigger then its parts, whatever, that is gained.

Well, I think the most obvious thing the relationship gets them is the same thing domesticated animals get from us. Protection from predators and guaranteed food. It's possible the animal actually enjoys the bond itself, but I don't think it's necessary.

I don't remember the horses being stabled or fastened in any way, and the Ikran for sure are absolutely free. So if the experience of bonding, making Tsaheylu, being ridden by Na'vi does have nothing beneficial to the animals, why not leave at the first opportunity?

We don't see where, if anywhere in particular, the horses are kept when not being ridden around, so it could go either way. It's worth noting that in many cases farm animals are not stabled or fastened either because they know where their food will be and won't wander off too far anyway.

[Ash]

Ah yes, regarding guaranteed food, that I have been thinking about. The horse we see slopping nectar from a blossom, I have no idea if this could be their main diet or just a kind of snack. The second horse in the scene where Jake is having his first lesson in horseback riding just seems to wander around looking for food.

With Seze we actually see Neytiri giving her a small piece of meat(I think with these jaws/teeth it is safe to assume it is meat they eat) as a treat, but I have been asking myself if the Na'vi actually provide the food for the Ikrans or if they hunt for themselves?
I do not have the ASG at hand to check what would be the main food source for Ikran - if they go hawk-style for earth-bound prey or if they favor to hunt for airborne prey. The former would be doable for the Na'vi I guess while the latter would be very hard to provide, the Ikran themselves might be more efficient here.
As for protection - the only source of danger to the Ikran seems to be Toruk, and while he may prefer the higher mountain regions he certainly is not shy to dive between the trees. So I am not sure if the Na'vi can offer any protection there.

(Regarding farms - I can not really give an opinion, as here in Germany cows, horses a.s.o may not be stabled or fastened, but (with rare exceptions)they are always in fenced areas. That may work different where are larger spaces)

[Mithcoriel]

It seems to me that my theory definitely explains why the bonded animals act the way they do (because the Na'vi completely controls the animal) whereas yours requires an extra assumption that the act of bonding would remove "the irrational, unjustified fears" from the animal.

1. Yes, yours explains more, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true, for one thing, cause it's less desirable. We can assume that James Cameron wouldn't create a depressing world. And I think one of the main points of Pandora is that it's such a wonderful place where people are able to live in harmony with animals without abusing them the way humans do. If the Na'vi engage in mental slavery, that's arguably a lot worse than humans, and kills the whole thing.
2. I don't think you understood how I meant it removes the irrational fears. Point is the animal sees in the Na'vis mind the reason it must not be afraid, not that it randomly erases the fear.

Imagine the following:
Let's say we put a Pa'li (horse) in front of a huge TV screen which shows a Palulukan (Thanator) approaching. I think the horse would panic. But now imagine a Na'vi is tsahaylued to it while this happens. Chances are, the horse might not be afraid because it can see in the Na'vi's mind that the danger isn't real. The horse might totally not understand why. It wouldn't understand the concept of television and artificial pictures yatta yatta. Maybe all it would understand is: "There is no Palulukan in front of me. Even though I can clearly see and hear it, there just isn't, somehow. I feel my rider is 100% certain of this."
So, if you ride them into danger, it might be the same thing. Who knows how much they really understand about why they shouldn't be afraid. One could call it "blind faith". Just like the horse in the above example has blind faith the predator isn't really there, even though it can't understand the reasoning behind that assumption. But is that a bad thing?

Wouldn't this require the bonded animal to be incredibly intelligent? What if the animal did gain an understanding of the Na'vi's goals and intentions but didn't care? Is such a thing possible?

Good question. But if the animal sees into the Na'vi's whole personality, it's hard not to care about him. If you see a random stranger on the street, you may not care about him. But if someone then froze time, gave you a mega-crashcourse on that guy's entire life, his ambitions and goals and fears and everything, and then restarted time, it's kinda hard not to emphasize with him and possibly root for him. Something like that could happen when you tsahaylu. Well, maybe a more subtle version of it, i.e. the animal doesn't literally and consciously know everything you ever did and what your bank pin is, but it feels your feelings, sort of on the more intuitive level.

But why would the Ikran care about the rider (especially seconds after it first met the rider)? And again, the bonded animal would to be incredibly intelligent (so as to actually understand its rider) or blindly loyal (complete loyalty to the desires of the rider despite not being intelligent enough to actually understand the rider).

The animal doesn't need to be intelligent. It should be able to feel all the rider's emotions, I doubt it needs intelligence to interpret those. Well, I basically adressed this with the above example of the horse in front of the monitor, that and the blindly loyal part.

As for why animals would obey, well I already mentioned: It could be simply because they "have nothing better to do". You give them the order "walk forward", and they think "hm, my rider just gave me the idea to walk forward. I wonder what I should do with it? Maybe walk forward?" Even you would obey such simple orders. If I meet you in person, and tell you to raise your arm for a second, most likely, you are first gonna raise your arm, and then ask me why. Only with non-intelligent animals, they would lack the curiousity to wonder why. And if they did wonder why, the best way to figure out is to obey and see what happens.
The reason you wouldn't blindly obey me if I continued giving you orders are:
- You'd want to know why, what's the point, etc. As I said, I don't think the animal cares.
- You have better things to do than obey me, your own ambitions and plans. Chances are, an animal's schedule isn't so full. All it wants to do all day is eat and sleep (and maybe get some exercise, which it gets when a Na'vi is riding with it). Then along comes this passionate Na'vi who absolutely wants to do this and that, so they go with it.
- You have pride. You'd feel insulted if I tried to boss you around. Many animals probably aren't so picky about that. (Some are, like alpha males and the like. But there seems to be no reason to assume the Pa'li and Ikran are among those.) They don't care about humiliation or anything like that.

You're assuming that the relationship of the bond evolved before the Na'vi started living closely with the animals they ride. Let's say a queue system capable of a proto-bond developed that didn't give the rider complete control. The Na'vi start living with certain animals and using them as mounts, labor, etc. Eventually, the queue system evolves to the current state with the animal giving up more control to the Na'vi for the benefit of both.

It would make more sense to me then, for the horses to evolve to be more obedient, instead of having the Na'vi control them more. (I.e. more inclined to want to obey the order instead of being rebellious. Not, what you suggested, that they still have the same desire to make their own choices, but are physically more incapable of doing so.) Kind of the way our domesticated animals evolved. I don't really think being enslaved by Na'vi is always advantageous. What if a young inexperienced rider controls the animal? What if he rides it to someplace dangerous, where e.g. the floor is likely to break under you, and the animal knows this danger, but because it's enslaved by the rider who doesn't know, they end up falling? That doesn't really make sense.
Also, it seems a bit insulting to the horses to suggest that their own natural behavior is so horribly wrong, their best advantage is to be helplessly enslaved by something else. I know Na'vi can use their intelligence to come up with good ideas sometimes, but the horse's decisions can't be flat-out stupid. The environment they live in is pretty much natural, after all, so their instincts are probably useful. It's not like on earth where dogs wrongfully bark at people because they don't realize they no longer need to defend their territory like their instincts tell them, and hedgehogs curl into a ball on the street when a car approaches cause their instincts tell them this will defend them against any predator. The pandoran animals are still in the environment their instincts evolved in.
And if there was something so disadvantageous to the way a horse acts without the control of a Na'vi rider, horses would have evolved intelligence or otherwise evolved the ability to know better.

There's bound to be disadvantages to such disobedience before there's advantage. And in order for Na'vi to use this connection, it must already be there. It's not like the Na'vi show up, think "Oh bummer, I can't control this animal via its tsahaylu", and then the animal's DNA thinks "Hey, that would be really useful, if I could get enslaved, I'll modify myself so my kids will have that."

Well, yeah, I guess this is basically what I'm suggesting. What's the problem with this. One animal has a mutation which allows the Na'vi bonding to it to have greater control. As a result, that animal/Na'vi pair is more successful than those without the mutation. The animal is more likely to survive and breed, or the Na'vi might notice the animal and breed it intentionally.

Well, for one thing, the idea about the Na'vi breeding the horses deliberately doesn't work cause the wild Ikran have the same kind of rider obedience. Actually, come to think of it, the Ikran (and the Toruk Jake rode!) cancel out the idea of evolutionary advantage cause the large majority of the Ikran population seems to be living freely in Iknimaya, not riding with Na'vi, so there's no reason an obedience enslavement gene would need to be so widly distributed. And it's also doubtful that Ikran who become the mounts of Na'vi riders are more successful at breeding than others. Actually, I would bet the contrary is true. If the Ikran in hometree had babies, the Na'vi would have baby Ikran right where they live, and the young warriors wouldn't need to travel to Iknimaya to get their own. I would say it's in fact a reasonable guess that an Ikran who bonds with a Na'vi doesn't have any young after that.

Well, you have to admit that deciding where to draw the line between reasons for killing that are arrogant and reasons for killing that aren't arrogant is problematic.

What's arrogant is not the reason for killing the animal. That's the same either way: "I'm hungry. And my social instincts forbid me to kill someone of my own kind. So I'll kill this creature." The point is your attitude toward the animal. Imagine it this way: You're a millionaire and you have a cleaning lady doing your office. You can either treat her with respect, greet her friendly and all, or you can look down on her and consider her to be an inferior person whose only purpose is to serve you. Either way, you don't actually change how you use the cleaning lady, she still cleans up your mess and gets a low salary for it, that doesn't change. But your view of her is different.

For control, the best example would be Jake's banshee diving on toruk.  That's just not going to happen without Jake in control because it almost certainly goes against every instinct the banshee has.  I'd say that's good evidence of some type of overriding control.

Hard to tell, but as I said, maybe Jake can mentally convince the Ikran. Even if the Ikran doesn't intellectually understand the full scope of the reason why it's a good idea to dive for the Toruk, it knows there is one.

Anyway: the ikran let out a worried shriek when they were getting close, and Jake calmed it down. Obviously he's not 100% in control, or the Ikran wouldn't have been able to utter that shriek

Of course there seems(at least with the Ikran) to be some kind of struggle for dominance, maybe to prove the worthiness of the rider?

What struggle for dominance? Are you referring to the wild erratic flight before Jake said "Shut up and fly straight"? The way I always perceived that was that the Ikran just flew the way it was used to, up down wildly, cause it doesn't understand (and maybe not yet care) that it can't do these things with a rider, or the rider will fall off. This causes Jake to swing around wildly and yell, which makes the Ikran nervous, (And, as Ash suggested, it feels Jake's fear through the tsahaylu, and gets nervous itself) so it starts doing wild movements, till Jake introduces to it the original idea of shutting up and flying straight.

Well, I think the most obvious thing the relationship gets them is the same thing domesticated animals get from us. Protection from predators and guaranteed food.

Do they really get those things? I kinda doubt the Na'vi can protect the animals from predators. Except maybe in the immediate proximity of hometree. I'm assuming a Palulukan wouldn't go that close. But otherwise?
And food? Can't the horses just eat the rich greens that are all around them? I find it hard to imagine the Na'vi could give them more leaves than they can find by themselves. And the ASG also doesn't mention anything like collecting food for horses.
As for the Ikran, it seems possible they would get a portion of the food the Na'vi hunted from their backs. But do they get enough to survive? The piece of meat Neytiri gave Seze was just a treat, after all.

[Ash]

Quote
Of course there seems(at least with the Ikran) to be some kind of struggle for dominance, maybe to prove the worthiness of the rider?

What struggle for dominance? Are you referring to the wild erratic flight before Jake said "Shut up and fly straight"?

Not this, but the fight before - when Jake gets on the back of the Ikran and tries to make the bond.

[Mithcoriel]

Oh, sure. But that's before the tsahaylu. I, personally, I'm kind of assuming that the Ikran at that stage still assumes Jake is a predator it must fight off. And once they bond it knows that that's not the case. Not quite sure I believe the part about the Ikran attacking him supposedly cause it chose him.  But even if it did: it's seemingly part of the weird ritual that it tries to kill him if it "chose" him, so, that wouldn't necessarily mean it doesn't want to bond, but maybe that it wants to test if he's worthy first.

[Tsa'räni]

I'm not suggesting it's 100% control.  But in order to overcome the survival instinct, you're going to need some level of control.  These aren't domesticated animals that are trained for countless hours.  I think the two minds strike some kind of balance, I suppose harmony if you like that word.  The animal's is not totally subsumed, but in the end, the rider is in control.

[Ash]

Ma Tsa'räni, I would expand the concept of the rider not controlling the mount but rather more convincing it(mostly not as a conscious effort, no talking-into or something like that) even to this. So only if the rider is sure of himself, his competence and not secretly doubting if this is what is to be done or that he should even sit on this animals back, it accepts his guidance.

The survival-instinct is indeed a very strong urge, but I think here this does count as well (the Na'vi will have it too, after all). Also the mounts are not like being remote-controlled - each rider is (regarding space)closer to his mount in these moments than to any of his fellows - if the mount is being hurt, so he likely is, too (if not physically, he at least is getting a backlash - this is at least my feeling when Neytiri is crying out almost synchronously with Seze). So to overcome the survival instinct of the mount, the rider has to do this for himself first -  to direct the mount into a situation where it could be hurt or die the rider has to be willing to be hurt and die for his cause as well.

And so there we again have fulfilled the principle of Eywa - balance. Almost beautiful, isn't it? 

[Tsamsiyu Atsteu]

Good points, there. I believe that the Ikran will only bond to the Na'vi if they are worthy, i,e brave, resilient. I think the 'ritual' if you will is to weed out any would be riders that would be weak, or indecisive and therefore a bad choice for the Ikran.

Oh, sure. But that's before the tsahaylu. I, personally, I'm kind of assuming that the Ikran at that stage still assumes Jake is a predator it must fight off. And once they bond it knows that that's not the case. Not quite sure I believe the part about the Ikran attacking him supposedly cause it chose him.  But even if it did: it's seemingly part of the weird ritual that it tries to kill him if it "chose" him, so, that wouldn't necessarily mean it doesn't want to bond, but maybe that it wants to test if he's worthy first.

[Tìrey Tsmukan]

Kaltxi.

as I see it, Tsaheylu is a sort of melding of the minds. when you make the Tsaheylu, (especially with an Ikran) your mind connects with the mind of the creature. Then a symbiotic flow of communication flows from the creature to you, and from you to the creature. I would think that there wouldn't be a need for "mental enslavement" as each mind becomes one. (perhaps to a smaller extent than what I'm thinking, but still towards that direction) so as an example, when Jake linked with his Ikran, a sudden flow of information flows between them. Jake gets feelings instinct and pride from the Ikran, while the Ikran receives thoughts, and possibly becomes smarter.

Anyway: the ikran let out a worried shriek when they were getting close, and Jake calmed it down. Obviously he's not 100% in control, or the Ikran wouldn't have been able to utter that shriek

now when Jake is flying over the toruk, I can almost guarantee that Jake was nervous as hell. there would be no reason for him not to be. so the Ikran was voicing it's nervousness as well. but then Jake made the commitment in his mind, and that information flowed to his Ikran, giving him strength.
and because the melding is mutual, as mithcoriel was about falling through the floor, that wouldn't happen. because the creature would see it, and the rider would then be warned.

Well, you have to admit that deciding where to draw the line between reasons for killing that are arrogant and reasons for killing that aren't arrogant is problematic.

What's arrogant is not the reason for killing the animal. That's the same either way: "I'm hungry. And my social instincts forbid me to kill someone of my own kind. So I'll kill this creature." The point is your attitude toward the animal. Imagine it this way: You're a millionaire and you have a cleaning lady doing your office. You can either treat her with respect, greet her friendly and all, or you can look down on her and consider her to be an inferior person whose only purpose is to serve you. Either way, you don't actually change how you use the cleaning lady, she still cleans up your mess and gets a low salary for it, that doesn't change. But your view of her is different.

when the Na'vi kill an animal, they use words to atone to the spirit of the animal. they find a way to voice the sadness of a death, How is that arrogant?
when an animal kills another animal, there is no feeling behind it. it is totaly unemotional, it is simply a way to survive, there is no arrogance when a shark kills a seal. the shark does what it needs to, perhaps the seal feels fear, but it doesn't feel the need for revenge or anything. likewise, the shark doesn't feel hate, or anger, or spite for the seal.
the most unforgivable act in my eyes, is to kill something for no reason. if the shark was totally full, and had all the fat content it needed. it wouldn't go kill the seal. when the Na'vi have food, they don't go and kill anything, it is when they need it that they use it. want not, need lightly. even then, they feel pain for the animal, they feel the death as a sacrifice. an example is when Neytiri saves Jake from the Viperwolves, "this is sad. they sad only. they did not need to die."
the Na'vi kill because they have to, you cannot live off just plants, not when your body is made to be and Omnivore. now, you will say that a vegetarian can live. but they do not work to the extent of the Na'vi, every day they work very hard. the vegetarian doesn't work as much, and he or she can accsess food from anywhere, there is no survival instinct.
Oeru txoa livu, I'm getting off topic due to my beliefs.

To give an example of the meld being a sharing of information, I am thinking of Right when Jake makes Tsaheylu with the Ikran, the Ikran's pupil widens, losing focus, I would think this was when the information process happened. because it was lost in the emotions and thoughts of Jake.

I would think that the Ikran is much more intelligent than the Pa'lì. because the Ikran is discriminatory, (it has to choose you as well) which gives it the beginnings
of self awareness. (you have to be aware of yourself if you want to be able to judge something else)

Oh, sure. But that's before the tsahaylu. I, personally, I'm kind of assuming that the Ikran at that stage still assumes Jake is a predator it must fight off.

come on, we both know that the Ikran is smarter than that. besides, Jake is half the Ikran's size. if anything, Jake is the one fighting off a predator.

well, I don't have much more to say that hasn't been covered already. but I will say this, when minds meld, there is going to be a connection. no matter how smart the Creature in question is. thoughts become one. that's too much of a bond to not mean anything.

Irayo frapo, ulte Eywa ayngahu.


Edit: fixed the quote that wasn't quite right.

[Tsamsiyu Atsteu]

I think you really hit the bulls-eye there Tìrey . That's what I think too, though you were just more elegant in stating it Tsaheylu  is a melding of mind and soul, in a way. You can feel what your Ikran feels and vice versa. They pick up senses from you (fear, pride, concern) and react accordingly but also take your direction ("shut up and fly straight!") verbally and mentally. I agree, if anyone was in danger, it wasn't the Ikran, it was Jake And the Na'vi make sure to give thanks to the animal they kill, respecting it and acknowledging its sacrifice so that they (the Na'vi) can live. Or like how Neytiri comforts the dying viperwolves in the beginning and asks their forgivness as they die. That is anything but arrogant, as you stated. It's very beautiful and spiritual.

Kaltxi.

as I see it, Tsaheylu is a sort of melding of the minds. when you make the Tsaheylu, (especially with an Ikran) your mind connects with the mind of the creature. Then a symbiotic flow of communication flows from the creature to you, and from you to the creature. I would think that there wouldn't be a need for "mental enslavement" as each mind becomes one. (perhaps to a smaller extent than what I'm thinking, but still towards that direction) so as an example, when Jake linked with his Ikran, a sudden flow of information flows between them. Jake gets feelings instinct and pride from the Ikran, while the Ikran receives thoughts, and possibly becomes smarter.

Anyway: the ikran let out a worried shriek when they were getting close, and Jake calmed it down. Obviously he's not 100% in control, or the Ikran wouldn't have been able to utter that shriek

now when Jake is flying over the toruk, I can almost guarantee that Jake was nervous as hell. there would be no reason for him not to be. so the Ikran was voicing it's nervousness as well. but then Jake made the commitment in his mind, and that information flowed to his Ikran, giving him strength.
and because the melding is mutual, as mithcoriel was about falling through the floor, that wouldn't happen. because the creature would see it, and the rider would then be warned.

Well, you have to admit that deciding where to draw the line between reasons for killing that are arrogant and reasons for killing that aren't arrogant is problematic.

What's arrogant is not the reason for killing the animal. That's the same either way: "I'm hungry. And my social instincts forbid me to kill someone of my own kind. So I'll kill this creature." The point is your attitude toward the animal. Imagine it this way: You're a millionaire and you have a cleaning lady doing your office. You can either treat her with respect, greet her friendly and all, or you can look down on her and consider her to be an inferior person whose only purpose is to serve you. Either way, you don't actually change how you use the cleaning lady, she still cleans up your mess and gets a low salary for it, that doesn't change. But your view of her is different.

when the Na'vi kill an animal, they use words to atone to the spirit of the animal. they find a way to voice the sadness of a death, How is that arrogant?
when an animal kills another animal, there is no feeling behind it. it is totaly unemotional, it is simply a way to survive, there is no arrogance when a shark kills a seal. the shark does what it needs to, perhaps the seal feels fear, but it doesn't feel the need for revenge or anything. likewise, the shark doesn't feel hate, or anger, or spite for the seal.
the most unforgivable act in my eyes, is to kill something for no reason. if the shark was totally full, and had all the fat content it needed. it wouldn't go kill the seal. when the Na'vi have food, they don't go and kill anything, it is when they need it that they use it. want not, need lightly. even then, they feel pain for the animal, they feel the death as a sacrifice. an example is when Neytiri saves Jake from the Viperwolves, "this is sad. they sad only. they did not need to die."
the Na'vi kill because they have to, you cannot live off just plants, not when your body is made to be and Omnivore. now, you will say that a vegetarian can live. but they do not work to the extent of the Na'vi, every day they work very hard. the vegetarian doesn't work as much, and he or she can accsess food from anywhere, there is no survival instinct.
Oeru txoa livu, I'm getting off topic due to my beliefs.

To give an example of the meld being a sharing of information, I am thinking of Right when Jake makes Tsaheylu with the Ikran, the Ikran's pupil widens, losing focus, I would think this was when the information process happened. because it was lost in the emotions and thoughts of Jake.

I would think that the Ikran is much more intelligent than the Pa'lì. because the Ikran is discriminatory, (it has to choose you as well) which gives it the beginnings
of self awareness. (you have to be aware of yourself if you want to be able to judge something else)

Oh, sure. But that's before the tsahaylu. I, personally, I'm kind of assuming that the Ikran at that stage still assumes Jake is a predator it must fight off.

come on, we both know that the Ikran is smarter than that. besides, Jake is half the Ikran's size. if anything, Jake is the one fighting off a predator.

well, I don't have much more to say that hasn't been covered already. but I will say this, when minds meld, there is going to be a connection. no matter how smart the Creature in question is. thoughts become one. that's too much of a bond to not mean anything.

Irayo frapo, ulte Eywa ayngahu.

[Kìte'eyä Aungia]

@Mithcoriel Our dialogue is becoming a bit too long to quote, so I'm going to attempt to summarize and respond without quoting everything.

So, here's what we definitely know: The bond allows the rider to feel the body of the bonded animal (its strong legs, etc.). The bond allows the rider to communicate mind-to-mind with the bonded animal.

If the bond does allow for direct control, we have a simple explanation for why an animal which just met its rider is willing to obey that rider (especially under stressful circumstances where the animal might normally spook). However, explaining how this relationship would have evolved is problematic (but possible), and if we consider that the bond probably doesn't allow one Na'vi to control another, I think the only plausible way it could work would be via some sort of most-intelligent-species-wins type system with the animals the Na'vi bond with being too simple or unintelligent to resist control.

If the bond doesn't allow for direct control, we don't have as much trouble explaining how the relationship would have come about (though come on, the idea of the bond is fairly ridiculous no matter how it works), but it may require some extra assumptions about the minds of these animals, and, ultimately, it still seems like a form of control/enslavement to me. You gave the example of having a horse walk around when it doesn't have much better to do, but I think that's avoiding the difficult cases where the animal definitely has something else it wants to do but follows counterproductive directions anyway.

The more I think about it, the more I think it's likely that the bond does involve some sort of merging of the two minds, which is similar to what you're suggesting. As you say, if the animal part of the mind spooks, the Na'vi part would probably be able to calm it down, and while I don't agree that animals often don't have anything better to do than follow Na'vi orders, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that a combined animal/Na'vi mind would favor the Na'vi's goals when deciding what to do and the Na'vi's superior ability to comprehend the world.

So, I think at this point our main disagreement is over whether or not something like this would constitute "mental enslavement". I don't accept this argument:

it's less desirable. We can assume that James Cameron wouldn't create a depressing world. And I think one of the main points of Pandora is that it's such a wonderful place where people are able to live in harmony with animals without abusing them the way humans do. If the Na'vi engage in mental slavery, that's arguably a lot worse than humans, and kills the whole thing.

because as I've argued before, even a bond relationship that involves direct control by the Na'vi could be a respectful one that is of great benefit to both parties, and I wouldn't consider such a thing to be at odds with the rest of the Avatar universe.

I also don't like this one:

Also, it seems a bit insulting to the horses to suggest that their own natural behavior is so horribly wrong, their best advantage is to be helplessly enslaved by something else. I know Na'vi can use their intelligence to come up with good ideas sometimes, but the horse's decisions can't be flat-out stupid.

Firstly, even if an explanation is insulting that doesn't mean it's wrong. Secondly, I don't think it's insulting at all. As I argued before, giving control to the Na'vi rider would probably improve the performance of the horse/Na'vi pair, and the Na'vi doesn't necessarily have to discount the horse's decisions as you're suggesting. And ultimately, we're not even talking about the horse's "natural behavior" unless you're suggesting that the horses and Na'vi have been together for so long that they've adapted their behavior to the relationship, a claim which you rejected when I made it.

What's arrogant is not the reason for killing the animal. That's the same either way: "I'm hungry. And my social instincts forbid me to kill someone of my own kind. So I'll kill this creature." The point is your attitude toward the animal.
. . .

That seems kind of arbitrary to me. Are you saying that any action taken towards any creature can be done in a non-prejudiced, non-arrogant way if your attitude towards the creature is respectful? But as I've pointed out before, the attitude of the Na'vi towards the animals they bond with is respectful, so how could using the bond, even if it does involve complete control of the animal, make the Na'vi arrogant or "prejudiced against another species"?

Well, I think the most obvious thing the relationship gets them is the same thing domesticated animals get from us. Protection from predators and guaranteed food.

Do they really get those things? I kinda doubt the Na'vi can protect the animals from predators. Except maybe in the immediate proximity of hometree. I'm assuming a Palulukan wouldn't go that close. But otherwise?

The immediate proximity of hometree is where the animals seem to spend most of their time, and even when they leave it's probably with large groups of armed Na'vi who I imagine would provide some protection, yes. When you're a domesticated animal living with humans/Na'vi you certainly don't have to worry about being picked off from your group and killed.

And food? Can't the horses just eat the rich greens that are all around them? I find it hard to imagine the Na'vi could give them more leaves than they can find by themselves. And the ASG also doesn't mention anything like collecting food for horses.

Maybe, maybe not, but the Na'vi can probably offer guaranteed food. In the wild, a bad season could thin out your herd. Not so with the Na'vi if they stockpile well enough.

As for the Ikran, it seems possible they would get a portion of the food the Na'vi hunted from their backs. But do they get enough to survive? The piece of meat Neytiri gave Seze was just a treat, after all.

I guess we don't know, but I always assumed the Ikran were fed by the Na'vi.