Reply to comment

Going from the I-functiuon to neuronal signals is, in my opinion, quite a leap.  A large-scale view of the brain as it relates to the idea of self and what we can and cannot control is very far removed in many ways from the molecular workings of  the brain. Nevertheless, the two ideas are related enough to make the transition reasonable. The idea that what we as individuals are made up of is vast network of chemical signals and pathways and that those pathways connect the I-function to other parts of the brain, allowing us to be aware of and intereact with the world around us is a bit bizarre at first glance. But at the same time it makes sense it terms of the fact that thinking takes time, that we forget things momentarily and then suddenly remember them later, and that drugs affect the brain in general and the I-function in particular. Having a concept of the I-function, we are better able to look at neuronal signals in terms of the function of the brain as a whole, rather than just as an isolated idea.

In class, we talked about how neuronal signals are all the same, and it is different pathways they take that create different actions. It makes sense that all action potentials work the same way and operate under the same principles, but I'm wondering how neurotransmitters fit into this picture. If they don't change the signals, then what exactly do they do? And why are there so many different ones? I know that some of them induce an action potential in the next neuron, and others of them inhibit an action potential, but I have a feeling that it's more complicated than that, since everything about the brain seems to be complicated.