In lecture, we said that the person is located in a section of the brain(the front part). First of all, what is the person defined as? Is the person not the sum of his or her behavior and personality and thus the brain? Or are we controlled by a peice of the body(the brain) which is considered a "non-person"? It is reasonable to say that there are features of our body that continue without us thinking about it, such breathing and the pumping of our heart. We can control the rate of breathing by running or relaxing,, but the overall process proceeds without us thiking about it. I think that the "person in the brain" has a lot more to say than we give it credit. The person has somewhat control in the inputs that the brain receives. Aside from situations such as accidently burning your hand or stepping on nail, we basically have a say in what we consider input. The person we are is apt to ignore certain situations and filter certain experiences. I would say that we are not passive in the process of deciding what inputs the brain receives. We are also not passive in the decision of what the out put is. Instead, the output is confounded by past experiences and the way we choose to react or act in a certain event. This can lead to various outputs from the same input.

Several different issues, all interesting. Yes, indeed, input not passively received but, in general, selected/chosen. But, it will turn out, that can happen without the "person in the brain". At least in the sense we've used that idea so far. The spinal cord influences inputs. And yes, there is an interesting problem in defining "person". In one sense, the spinal cord certainly IS part of an individual. In another (the one used in class), the "person" is distinct in that it can't control the spinal cord. Bit of a thorny thicket, huh? Can think of ways to get us through it over the semester? PG