Reply to comment

I think the posts above regarding dreams are really interesting. I had the same thoughts in class on Thursday. If auditory hallucinations in schizophrenics has been attributed to low levels of corollary discharge, then when we dream do our levels of discharge decrease? This would make sense since discharge has been associated with input and many of our sensory inputs are altered when we sleep. However, I'm not sure I agree with Madina in that we don't know who we are when we dream. As far as auditorial perception goes, that is probably an input that is altered when we sleep, explaining why it takes longer to answer when someone calls your name than when awake. I do like the idea of I-function on standby, though. When we dream we sometimes see ourselves from a third party perspective (at least I do) but when I'm watching myself in my dream, I'm still aware of my self. I would be curious to know if there is any link between I-function in dreams and being unable to die in our dreams (since it's not something we've experienced before). I'm not sure if that's been proven, but it's something I've heard and it makes sense. Where do I-function and experience overlap?

I also want to review the reafferent loop, its function, and its relation to corollary discharge levels.

I'm worried that our conversation is pulling us away from the idea of the "mind," since I-function seems to be becoming less and less impressive or necessary. However, as someone who is still on the fence of dualism, I want to make sure we are aware of all of our options and don't just dismiss the idea of dualism because I-function is not as important as we previously thought. The idea that I-function is not necessary for decision making does not entirely convince me that it is completely irrelevant to the process. Along the same lines, we were discussing choices and behaviors, and, while it is important to look at simple behaviors like clapping or any output in response to two simultaneous inputs, we have to remember that there is so much going on inside our brains when we make decisions that it might not be comparable. If choices are made based on the I-function (which I believe it might be), why can't the I-function just be another pattern generator? or that which all generators refer back to? In terms of risk taking, competing pattern generators would look to the I-function (or personality of the self), in order to determine which generator "wins out" in the end.