Reply to comment

I think it makes sense that there is an "I-function" in the equation of inputs and outputs. How else are outputs generated without inputs? Similarly, inputs can be generally disregarded and fail to produce a response, or output. In this sense, the "I-function" serves as a catch-all explanation that corroborates the Harvard Law of Animal Behavior. In the case of the nature vs. nurture debate, the "I-function" explains the variability in outputs regardless of genetic make-up or environmental factors. For example, we can apply the "I-function" to the case of identical twins who were raised in the same environment during the same time frame but perhaps exhibit completely different personality traits or behaviors. This could be explained by the "I-function". Even though these twins share the same genetic material and were raised in the same environment, they are each unique because of the "I-function". Each twin has their own separate thought processes, value systems, and beliefs. These different values and beliefs can be directly attributed to the "I-function", or each twin's own ability to integrate information and formulate an "output". From my own viewpoint, their individual thoughts and beliefs should be considered outputs to the same extent that physical actions are deemed worthy of the "output" label.