Just when I thought it was safe to believe that we may have more "I" in our behavior than I thought, we started talking about corollary discharge signals. For example, sea sickness or motion sickness in general has been something that has plagued my life incessantly...When I think more about it, the incongruent signals (in which I have very little "I" function involvement) can control my behavior for vast amounts of time.

And the knee "dare I say reflex" I am still thinking about its purpose, and why for example "reflexes" can be dull after car injuries or head injury. I realize that we do not have a great deal of control over behavior in many curcumstances (like the knee reflex) because we cannot control which corrollary discharge signals make it back to register information. And our conscious awareness does not seem able to register CD's for the most part.

I am still thinking about the moving eye/hand example and why two similar images on the retina are changed by the brain due to CD's. It seems that much of our brain's perception is regardless of the "I" function. We can't consciously feel propriorecepters for example. And we cannot control Cd's and we are not aware of which Cd's are functioning and which are not- and ironically much of behavior seems based on them.

Interesting and appropriate wonderings. It IS significant how much of behavior can be accounted for without invoking an "I-function". Not only to "know thyself" (and others) better, but also because it helps to clarify what IS meant by an "I-function" and, ultimately, what it IS useful for (and how best it can be used). PG