To my mind your logic makes some leaps, but I mainly take issue with your assumption that humans are the most intelligent animal. Whales and elephants are just two species that come to mind, who have the potential (in terms of neurology) to match or even exceed human intelligence. Consider that a whale's brain shows signs of being further evolved (e.g. has additional lobes), has the same "advanced" features (such as spindle neurons), can be 20x larger than the human brain, etc. Also, whales show signs of intelligence in things such as bubble net fishing, for example.

(You may have heard the tired old claim of the relationship between brain:body ratio and intelligence, but remember that this would make the hummingbird the smartest animal alive.)

When the donkey is given the choice, a process is involved in making a decision. For sake of example, we assume that this process is physical - the chemical and electrical processes of the brain.

It's erroneous to simply think that the only two elements in this problem/paradox are the grass and the ass. There's a third: the process by which the ass makes decisions. Again, how that process works is integral.

Are you accounting for the mechanism behind rationality, though? Whether a brain, a computer, whatever - there are processes which inform how a decision gets made. How those processes work is directly related to how those processes react in the example scenario.

I wouldn't count this as a paradox, but it is an interesting problem.

If we leave the example scenario as an ass and hay, it opens the door to all kinds of cheap tricks to solve the problem, using the mechanics/determinism of the universe, biology, etc. The same applies to any "practical" scenario; you can always find a fudge somewhere in the reality of the situation.

To avoid that, I like to reduce the problem down to an isolated, logical system. There exists (in conceptual/mathematical space) an entity which is driven to "eat" cells to avoid death. It will always "eat" the cell closest to it, It's placed at a coordinate on a unit grid (i.e. we're agreed that this space is not infinitely divisible, etc) and two identical cells are placed at equal distances from the entity.

The question now becomes about the process by which a) the entity becomes aware of cells (i.e. how it knows they're there, how it calculates the distance, whether and how it stores this knowledge, etc) and b) how it makes the decision to approach a cell.

These processes need to be further refined. For example, the entity could be programmed to approach the first cell that qualifies as being the closest cell (i.e. it keeps an internal database sorted by distance and just chooses the first), but this solution is conditional; it depends on the assumption that the entity is a) programmed and b) programmed in this way.

So I imagine the solution comes subsequent to identifying a situation where the conditions and processes are disconnected from the scenario/situation.

Any thoughts?

I've had similar thoughts about ADHD, autism and such. For me, the danger lies in assuming that the status quo is correct and that anything contrary to it is wrong and needs to be fixed. Also, in many cases (such as depression or schizophrenia) it's the person themselves who identifies the problem and seeks help; in ADHD and autisim, another person makes that decision, followed by the decision to fill the "problem child" with chemicals.

Using ADHD as an easy example: A child struggles to concentrate, etc. This might be considered a "disorder" as far as, that child is placed in a typical educational environment and then isn't able to handle it in a way that others can and in a way that others would like them to.

To teachers and parents who want the child to sit still and soak everything in, this is a problem and they want to correct it (often chemically). However, there's not necessarily anything wrong with the child. It's entirely possible that the characteristics of their ADHD could have their own applications - probably later in life.

In short: The lone fact of not being able to "fit in" shouldn't be considered a medical issue.