Corollary discharge signals both help us to account for the complexity of behavior and also raise many ethical questions.

First of all, CD signals account for the differences of people's responses to the same input. In general, it is very hard to predict how a person will react to a specific input, and there is no guarantee that two different people will react similarly.

Also, CD signals help us understand such phenomena as the motor sympony (different muscles contracting at the specific times to one another, and how the complex behavior can be broken down into several CPG's of the simpler behaviors that are communicating with each other by the means of CD signals). An example of such would be a person learning to play accordeon. Let's say, he learns to play the left hand and the right hand separately. By doing this, the person modifies the existing CPGs to form two CPG: the right hand playing, and the left hand playing. But then, in order to put them together the person has to use his CD signals to produce the movements that would be timed relatively to one another and the right music would be played.

Also, CD signal help us to understand "phantom limbs" and related phenomena. One of such related behaviors is having one's limbs asleep. For example, if one were to sit in an uncomfortable position for a long period of time, one's foot would "fall asleep". When such a person would get up and try to move, he would be able to produce the general movenment he would produce normally (motor symphony is present), but he would not be able to adjust to random position of the foot efficiently (inputs are inhibited). But CD signals sent from the foot would nevertheless tell a person the position his foot should be at.

CD signals also help explain the behaviors that are produced by the mismatches between CD signals and the input signal: motion sickness, astronaut sickness, etc.

Some of the questions that arise in my mind are:

Why are some people able to consciously control their motion sickness? Does I-function play a role similar to the one that input signals play in the motor simphony: the one of adjusting otherwise ready output?

Also a question about choices:

If we were to think of choices as involuntary (biologically determined) actions, this would relate to an issue of fatalism and free will. Such a view would support a theory of fatalism, as in : "Everything that happened was meant to happen and one could not do anything to change it". The main objection that i have to such a view on choosing is that to me it seems that at a particular point I could choose either option, and that it is me (the I-function), not my nervous system, who does the choosing.

Nice CD thoughts/questions. I'm not sure though about the foot asleep one. In that case, there is no (or reduced) sensory input, but one can (I think) still move the limb. Hence there would be both movement and appropriate CD's, no? As for fatalism: that's important and we'll get to the question of whether there is something "choosing", as opposed to just CD's and CPG's. Yes, the "I-function", but no not "me versus the nervous system" (since its all one thing). That be ok? PG