Reply to comment

Two things came up while thinking over last thursday's class.

First, we were discussing sleepwalking as an activity not controlled by the i function when Paul mentioned that this brought up an interesting legal issue. Although the issue was mentioned in passing, the general opinion given was that there should be a separate category for "sleepwalking criminals", or in other words, those individuals whose bodies engaged in criminal actions without input from their ifunction. While I would definitely agree that a separate category should be used when sentencing, I think it's important to realize that such individuals represent a special danger to those around them, and further that, on average, those individuals convicted of crimes while permanently or temporarily insane (without proper mediation of activities by their i functions) spend comparably more time confined in mental institutions than individuals convicted of the same crime spend in jail. If, in fact, the offenders could not adequately control (to the extent that they did not engage in criminal action) their bodies through their i function (they could not prevent themselves from committing crimes, and as far as they are concerned, they did not commit crimes), then who's to say their ifunction will be able to prevent future criminal activity ("sleepwalking murder" was brought up in class)? It seems that, without control of their body through the ifunction, that a 'criminal's' actions are non-predictable unless the underlying condition is treated (is this something that can be done with success?). For this reason, we should have some sort of confinement facility at least nominally for the purpose of correction (this term is loosely refers to correctional facilities as they exist).

Second, I was thinking more about neuron plasticity as it relates to learning and memory, and ultimately, to personality (students made the point that our tendencies were the way that people define themselves). If in fact our experiences and memories change and condition us (permanently alter the structure and interface of our neurons) to exhibit personal tendencies, beliefs and personality traits, then shouldn't we consider the ultimate source of these things-neuron plasticity- to be the thing that 'makes us who we are'? Further, if we can remove the cumulative effects of neuron change over time and experience, shouldn't the person lose all vestiges of their personality and memory? I realize some aspects of behavior are inborn (the fear response of mice to cats, and of other species to stay still in times of fear and perceived danger, for instance), but the defining features of individuality (in the context of being some distinct person/personality) seem to be linked ultimately to neuron plasticity and accumulated changes to ones neurophysiology with experience over time.