Reply to comment

 I found the idea of an I-function to be extremely intriguing. When contrasting this with the boxes in the nervous system we explained that unlike these boxes, which in large numbers affect behavior, the I-function is not necessary for behavior. If we define it as the “me” box, something that is conceived and experienced by oneself and not the outside world, what then is its role in the nervous system? The example of Christopher Reeve’s accident and ensuing diagnosis was helpful in exploring this idea. Since his nervous system was interrupted in a particular location, he lost the ability to control his limbs on his own; however, he could still respond to stimuli to his nerves. This exemplifies the notion of the I-function if the I-function is understood to be a box that can influence an output by generating an input. The catch is that it is dependent upon other boxes for access to the input. To me this implies that it is intricately connected with the other boxes of the nervous system, thus indicating it is a part of the nervous system. But where is it located? In Christopher’s Reeve’s case, there is evidence that it could be located in the brain and was rendered inactive since his cables were not linked. However, I am still not sure if this is the location of the I-function.

On a somewhat related note, I would like to further explore the meaning of pain. At the end of our discussion we mentioned that one does not have to have previous experience of pain in order to feel it. If this is true, does that mean it is an innate feeling? And if so, how do we explain the varying experiences of pain held by different people? In the case of Christopher Reeve’s, he could not feel pain because his cables were not linked and he was located on the other side of the cables. With this in mind, I wonder if pain is a part of the I-function box. This is an area that I hope we continue to discuss in the coming classes.