Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Reply to comment

Olufemi.Nazsira's picture

A Reconceptualization of the I-Function

A few years ago I suffered an injury which caused me to lose all sensation in my leg due to over nerve damage. The doctors would come into my hospital room periodically and command me to wiggle my toes, which no matter how hard I concentrated, I was never able to do. The I-Function to me seems to be not only your willpower but your power (ability) to effectively carry out actins that you mentally intend to do. It was not enough for my brain to send the signals to my toes, but necessary for my toes to consequently move as a result of the signal, right? But can the I-Function alternately be define by what one cannot so or experience? I know this sounds counter-intuitive (to define something by what it is not) but I am just curious-can one argue that the I-Function can be defined just as much by what it can do as what it cannot do; i.e. can I say that my inability to wiggle my toes or to experience sensation in my feet are also a function of my I-Function? 







To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
7 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.