Reply to comment

I think it’s interesting that we’re jumping from discussing the I-function to discussing the nuts and bolts of neurons and the way they work because it seems like neuronal activity is not controlled by the I-function. For instance, if someone were to ask me to make a specific one of my nerves propagate an action potential, I wouldn’t be able to. If someone were to ask me to wiggle my toes, I’d simply wiggle my toes. I wouldn’t initiate an action potential in the section of my brain devoted to the I-function that would then tell the nerves in my foot to tell the muscles in my toes to contract and relax, producing the behavior known as toe-wiggling. As far as I know, people aren’t capable of directly influencing the most basic behaviors of their nervous systems just by wanting to. I am also of the opinion that the I-function is only a very small portion of the inner workings of the nervous system, and it would seem that all neurons, no matter what their role, behave the same way at the most basic level. So my question is this: are we simply moving from the I-function to neuronal signals because we need to move from a general discussion of nervous system behavior to a technical discussion of nervous system logistics, or is there a specific point to be made about neuronal signals and the I-function specifically? I personally am more interested in how neuronal signals, which (as far as we’ve discussed) all behave similarly, can produce such diverse responses as evidenced by the vast array of different behaviors among individuals of the same and of differing species. This is partially because I find such behavioral diversity fascinating and because I remain skeptical of the necessity of an I-function in explaining behavior.