Reply to comment

I am still stuck on this concept of the "I-function".  I have been trying to better define it for myself and have become satisfied with the following explanation of what the "I-function" entails.  The "I-function" is our sense of what we can do based on the capabilities of our nervous system.  The "I-fuction", I think, is unique to humans in that we may be able to respond physically to certain inputs (i.e. Christopher Reeves and the foot pinch response), but the response is not a part of what we have constructed to be "us" even though we can recognize and acknowledge that there is a visible response or reaction.  In the case of a dog or frog, I would argue that the dog or frog does not realize the unfelt physical response due to a lack of or less developed self awareness.  In class we mentioned that there is a system within the nervous system that allows for the nervous system to look at itself.  We asked, is this the "I-function"?  Maybe. I would argue that only certain species have a nervous system equipped with this internal system that allows for the nervous system to assess itself.  I would argue that this is the difference between a human and a frog (and perhaps a dog).  On the subject of dogs, I have been wondering that if one pulled, pinched,or flicked a paraplegic dogs tail, if it would respond like Christopher Reeves would.  Do you think the dog has the cognitive capability to realize that even though he/she doesn't feel a response that there is still a physical resposne?  I would surmise no and that is how I would differentiate between a human being and a dog.