Reply to comment

The idea that behaviors are not ouputs, but actually a pattern of activity across lots of output elements makes a lot of sense in my opinion because behaviors are complex, if each possible behavior was connected to a unique output, the number of outputs would be enormous.Also, many behaviors, especially in humans, are not static, they change in response to circumstances. If behaviors were tied to specific outputs, how would they change? Building new outputs in order to change behaviors would be overly complicated. Patterns can easily be changed by substituting in different framework.

The "I-function" is an interesting idea. Certainly there are parts of the brain that can't be consciously controlled, and that more goes on in our brains than we are aware of, but it seems strange to put the concept of self in a box and separate it from the rest of the brain. I'm having trouble getting used to the idea that part of my brain isn't me. I wonder if it is a "box" in a sense that we might one day be able to pinpoint the part(s) of the brain that is the "I-function?" Or is it simply another way to explain consciousness? Do actions that we are conscious of involve neurons that are part of the "I-function?" Maybe the "I-function" is the part of the brain is different between individuals, and the parts of the brain that we are not aware of are the same. Though, how would we be able to tell if those other boxes were different, if we aren't consciously aware of their actions. Are the the ways that the neurons are connected different between individuals? Or is it the signals they send and times they send those signals that are different?