Again, I understand your assertion of the existence of an "I-function" in terms of a person who has a severed spinal cord, but the idea continues to be bizarre to me. The logic that there seems to be an "I-function" located in the rostral nervous system (because a paralyzed person will continue to assert that he is "in there" when asked), but that we cannot know for sure whether there is such a function in the caudal nervous system (because there is no way of asking), makes sense, I suppose, but does not seem to me to be particularly scientific. And then there is the question of the mind that we have discussed for the past three weeks. Is the "I-function" a "mind"? What biological purpose does it serve within your brain=behavior model? Perhaps if we turned more directly to the biology of the nervous system and the evidence that you find there for your model of behavior, it would do more to back up your argument than would further philosophising at this point.

Fair enough. Will though return to "I-function" and what it might be good for. And let's return as well at some point to the meaning of "scientific" and how/whether that's different from "makes sense". PG