Reply to comment

This notion that the I-function is a filter rather than a box is an intriguing one that makes a lot of sense to me. One reason why the I-function may be better described as a filter rather than a box is that, unlike other boxes, it does not produce any output on its own. It works through other boxes, filtering and channeling signals down different pathways depending on if the signal relates to an awareness of the self. The I-function, therefore, can be part of several different pathways. Describing the I-function as a filter gives it more flexibilty. It is not a box that is always part of a certain behavior pathway, but it is a filter that can be taken our or put back in. For example, the pathway that causes people to perform some kind of engrained, habitual behavior, such as biting their nails, can occur with or without the I-function. It is the same behavior of biting nails, but it can occur with and without the person knowing what they are doing. The I-function can distinguish between this kind of behavior one is and is not aware of. However, I do not think the I-function can distinguish between voluntary and involuntary behaviors, as these separate two distinct sets of behaviors. Involuntary movements include things like digestion, heart beating, etc. Voluntary movements include walking, talking, eating, etc. The I-function distinguishes movements within the voluntary category. The same behavior can be projected differently through the I-function filter to make the person aware or not aware of their behavior. Thus, the I-function is a filter that can be placed in or taken out of a pathway.