Reply to comment

             I think that the transition from the I-function to neural signals is just fine. One part that I found especially important was the fact that “all neural signals are the same, it is the neural pathways that are different.” I think that this fact can help explain why only certain things are affected by the I-function, or at least the I-function as I see it. In order for something to be a part of the I-function, it would have to be connected to specific pathways that send signals from the part of the brain that has the I-function to specific parts of the body. “We” are connected to the parts of the body that we control. Literally. But more importantly, I think that talking about multiple pathways and connections can also help me understand why sometimes things seem to be a part of the I-function and why they don’t at other times. Considering the millions of different neural pathways that exist in the human body, I think that it would be reasonable to think that there are many different pathways that can lead to the same part of the body and even create same response. Therefore, sometimes the I-function may give off a signal that would go down a certain pathway and create a response, such as breathing. But sometimes, there might be a part of the brain that is not within the consciousness that will send a signal that will go down certain pathways and end up giving the same response, which in this case, would also be breathing. The starting places and the pathways may be different, but if they end up in the same exact place, then they might be able to cause the same thing to happen. Their ability to switch roles, I am sure, is also determined by connections between those parts of the brain and the things that they can control. I think the fact that the pathways determine function, not the signals themselves, makes the I-function make a lot more sense.