It seems to me that saying CDs are responsible for a choice reaction makes it difficult to pose a belief in an I-function. An I-function proposes a concept of autonomy within the nervous system...if this autonomy is depicted> as a CD or a neoru-process, the entire system becomes a mechanicalk system and then we might as well be robots, functioning as we are programmed to do so. A Pleurobranchea will not respond when eating but will otherwise...this observation does not imply a choice? in higher organisms choice is an everyday , opngoing process....whether it be what to wear or what to drink. If one chose a purple shirt to wear there is no CD that made him wear it? it is a choice factor - an I function.
my proposition is simply that CDs cannot be held responsible for every and any action that is not processed by thought and analysis.
Interesting set of issues. CD's and "I-function" are not mutually exclusive ideas (they better not be, since there is strong evidence for both). What thinking about CD's does is to show to what extent behavior which LOOKS like "choice" may have its basis in CD. And that, in turn, can help try and figure out what is (and is not) distinctive about the I-function, as well as what we normally MEAN by the word "choice". PG