Most people have a strong sense that they are. As Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am.” We feel we exist. We have subjective experiences. We are self-aware, we have internal dialogues, the ability to override instincts, and affect our environments. Be it divinely given, found in the metaphysical, manufactured in the brain, or merely an illusion, the sense of self dictates our experience of ourselves and reality. 

Religion, philosophy, and science have dedicated significant amounts of time to bettering our understanding of the self and where the sense of self comes from. This has provided us with three paradigms through which we can examine the sense of self: the spiritual, the philosophical, and the scientific. Each paradigm also prescribes different methods to ‘know thyself’ and to ‘better thyself.’

This article will touch on a few of the common themes found within each of these paradigms. The theories presented here are neither exhaustive nor are they mutually exclusive. This is merely a space for you to assess your own beliefs while getting a hint of other understandings. 

Before we get into it, we need to address the etymological difficulties embedded within this topic. Words such as: soul, mind, body, brain, and self, are often used interchangeably. Keep in mind that your understanding of these words may conflict with how they are used here. Also, take a minute to consider, no matter how you understand the self that understanding is constrained by the language you think in. If Descartes did not have a language in which to articulate thoughts, would he be? 

The Soul

The Divine Self and the True Self

If you were born to different parents, in a different country, at a different time, would you still be you? 

If you answered yes, your perception of the self might align with the belief that the self comes from the soul or spirit. A view that what makes you who you are is inherent and stands apart from your biology, culture, or environment. As Rumi said, “I am not this hair, I am not this skin, I am the soul within.” Or C. S. Lewis, “You do not have a soul, you are a soul.” 

While the concept of the soul is found in many practices, not all who believe in the soul understand it to be the source of the self. However most religions and spiritualists adhere to some form of a soul-self concept. Some think of the soul as a piece of universal consciousness, others think of it as a duality of higher and lower aspects. 

Despite these differences, there is even more agreement about what the soul-self is. The soul is eternal; even after physical death some part of the self will go on. It resides within the body, but is independent of the body. While the mind and body are a part of the self, the soul, or at least part of the soul, is the ‘true self,’ or the ‘core of our being.’ It is the part of us closest to the divine and the part of us we should strive to act in line with. It is who we are and simultaneously who we are meant to be. 

Arguments for the Soul-Self 

The most compelling evidence for the soul-self are the numerous first hand accounts of near death experiences (NDEs) and reincarnation. Not only are NDEs frequent, they are described similarly across cultures, beliefs, and even generations. People who have these experiences see them as being ‘realer than reality’ and life changing. Check out this article in Philosophy Now for a more in depth argument. 

Reincarnation is also a well documented phenomenon that confounds explanation. While reincarnation is associated with Hinduism, it has been documented around the world and can be found in countries that believe in it and those that do not. The University of Virginia has over 2,500 documented cases of children experiencing memories, personality traits, and physical attributes from a past life. Several of these cases have held up through investigation and scrutiny (Ernesto Bonilla, 2015).

Whether or not you believe in the validity of NDEs or reincarnation claims, their pervasiveness speaks to an almost universal sense that we are more than our bodies and that we survive our physicality. While lots of people believing in something is not evidence, given the subjective nature of the topic, we cannot ignore people’s experience of themselves. 

Knowing the Soul

Many who believe in the soul hold that the purpose of life is to tap into the soul, the divine, or true self. There are thousands of terms for this; self-realization, awakening the soul, resurrection of the self, self-actualizing, and finding yourself. These terms denote an internal process or a journey. Knowing yourself is not about your family, your education, or even that solo trip you took around Asia—it is about stripping away the externalities. Your true self is there, you have to discover it. 

The Mind

The Narrative Self and the Embodied Self

You know the saying, ‘mind over matter?’ Do you take its meaning literally? 

Bernard Williams would suggest thinking about it like this: let’s say I kidnapped you and a random person. Just for fun I swapped your brain data; your memories, learned mannerisms, everything that you were not born with. Then I decided to torture one of you. Who would you want me to torture?

If you wanted me to torture your original body, you might believe we derive our identities or sense of self from ‘the mind’ or the ‘psyche’. That who we are is not the sum of our parts, but the experience of being a person with a body, memories, thoughts, and feelings. 

The concept of the mind is difficult to define, as it is often used in conflicting ways. However, within this paradigm, the mind is our intangible source of being. It is connected but distinct from the physical brain. It is the experience of our thoughts, feelings, and memories. It enables us to be self-aware, to have a first person perspective, and exercise free will. It is our consciousness. 

Arguments for the mind-self

One of the arguments supporting the theory of an immaterial mind is qualia, the argument from knowledge. Qualia is the experience of qualities: the redness of an apple, the smell of a flower, the taste of a meal. These experiences cannot be created through the mechanics of brain functioning. This implies that the part of us that experiences the redness of the apple is nonphysical. To hear a better explanation, check out this debate between Sean Carrol and Phillip Goff. 

Or consider this conundrum articulated by Alex O’Conner: most people can close their eyes and picture something. Be it an apple, the moon, or a friend’s face, we can create an image only we can see. Where is this image? It is not in the brain, we cannot cut the brain open and find it. For many, the obvious answer is that the image is in the mind. 

Another argument for the self-mind is the phenomenon of out of body experiences (OBEs). Out of body experiences have been well documented and are reported by people from all walks of life, including Navy Pilots and Astronauts. OBEs are triggered by physical things. However, they demonstrate the ability to perceive our consciousness outside of our bodies, to have a perspective and awareness that is seemingly detached from the brain. Without the mind, would it be possible to even imagine this? 

Knowing the Mind 

The mind-self acts autonomously over the physical brain. If the human brain is a computer, the mind is the person picking which program to run. We can choose to meditate every day to reduce our anxiety. We can choose to read a book to improve our cognitive abilities. We can choose to moderate behaviors which cause us harm. The mind gives us control over who we are. If the self comes from the mind, then it is up to us to choose our identities, to decide who we want to be. 

The Body

The Neural Self 

Let’s pretend you are a judge (please suspend any knowledge of the law for the next few sentences). Two men are presented to you. One killed dozens of people, while the other is innocent. You don’t know which one is which, but you have to convict one of them. 

For whatever reason, you are only able to hear the testimony of one expert witness. You have the choice to hear from a psychologist who has spent hours talking to both men or a neurobiologist who has studied scans of both men’s brains (assume the technology is advanced enough to see sufficient detail in the brain). Supposing the experts are equally accomplished in criminology, which expert would you choose to hear from?

If you picked the neurobiologist you might believe that the sense of self comes from the brain. That who you are comes down to your synapses and connectome. Your personality, your consciousness, your understanding of the world, even your perception of an immaterial mind comes from your material brain (your body).  

Arguments for the Self as the Body

In this paradigm, we are not in control of who we are. Just as we cannot control our livers, we do not choose how our brains are formed or function. They are absorbing information, making connections, and forming responses without our knowledge or consent. The unconscious self and implicit bias are symptoms of brain power running in survival mode, not of a thinking mind or soul. 

The primary argument for the body-self is that the majority of faculties and experiences attributed to the soul or the mind can be explained with brain function. Brain trauma can erase a person’s memory and change their personality. Emotional states can be altered via drugs. Even seemingly mysterious traits can be manipulated by physical means. Anesthesia renders people unconscious. Electrical stimulation can trigger an out of body experience. Whether there is a clear explanation or not, these phenomena are rooted in the brain. 

Knowing the Self-Body

If we are our brain, then the best way to know ourselves is to know the brain. Which makes neurobiology and psychology possible paths to knowing ourselves. However, a reductionist perspective says that to understand biology, you need to study chemistry, and to understand chemistry you need to know physics. Ultimately, what we are is a combination of atoms and space. Therefore, it is through the study of the atom that we can begin to know ourselves.

If the self is the brain, optimizing the self becomes a matter of meeting physical needs. Good nutrition, sleep, and exercise are fundamental to being the best version of you. However, as stated earlier, we have limited control over our brains. Our environment, experiences, and genetics also play a major role in determining how our brain functions. Therefore, not only do we need to care for ourselves, but we need to form healthy communities and promote good experiences. In this way, we can be our best self and lay the groundwork for future healthy individuals. 

All or Nothing 

The Non Self 

Soul, mind, or body, do several of these, all of them, or none of them feel real to you? Is your perception of yourself in a constant flux? 

If so, maybe looking at the self as an illusion or a non-self will make sense to you. Instead of focusing on one unifying source of self, look at everything. In this paradigm, the self is not just memories or an organ or atoms, but all of it, all together, all at once. The sense of self is nothing more than an awareness of what is happening in and around you. Hume described the self as, “a stream of perceptions.”  The Buddha said, “you do not experience your perceptions and feelings: you are your perceptions and feelings.”

Being everything, the self or non-self is always changing. The sense that there is a continuity of self is an illusion. Instead, the self is continuously reforming. Our environments change. Our social roles evolve. Our bodies grow and age. Our memories fade. Our emotions fluctuate. We have new experiences and forget the old ones. With every change we become a new self. Here is a good reference for a better understanding of the Buddhist philosophy of non-self. 

Arguments for the self as an illusion or non-self 

One of the early Buddhist arguments for the nonself went like this: if anything were a self it would be both non changing and self-determined. Nothing has both of these properties, therefore nothing is a self (Vallicella, 2002)

David Hume, who thought of the self as a ‘bundle of perceptions, wrote, 

“For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception” (Treatise, 1.4.6.3).

 Like Hume, try it to catch yourself, try to think of yourself without relying on what you are feeling or what is around you. If you cannot, maybe that is because you are your perceptions. 

Embracing the Illusion

Understanding the self in this way allows us to step out of the ‘self’ narrative. The narrative that traps us in identities; ‘I am a failure.’ ‘I am a high achiever.’ ‘I am an artist.’ Or even self-determining descriptions; ‘I like ice cream.’ ‘I am afraid of the dark.’ ‘I have social anxiety.’ We are none of these, because we are all of them but only for moments. Treating these passing experiences as if they are fixed terms lock us into an artificial frame of being. Forming identities around them forces us into a struggle against inevitable change while simultaneously making change a struggle. When we recognize the self as an illusion, we are free to embrace the continuous state of becoming.This enables ourselves to let go and move through the different phases of life with ease and acceptance. 

Are you still with me? 

You probably already have a belief about your sense of self and an idea of the best way to ‘know yourself,’ however I would like to make a suggestion. Instead of holding to one understanding or practice, we could take a constructivist approach. Taking the beneficial aspects of all these theories and applying them to our lives and societies. 

You might object to this idea and argue that we should seek to align our practices with the truth. While it is generally best to follow that which is true, we can still reap benefits from alternative understandings of the self. Like a placebo, neither the mind nor the soul have to be real for them to be useful. 

Seeing an aspect of ourselves as true or ideal can help us create an internally driven image of who we want to be, what to aspire to. Seeing ourselves as a mind, gives us a sense of autonomy. It empowers us to pursue being who we want to be. It also provides a framework in which to talk about ourselves. Understanding how the brain influences the self allows for greater levels of empathy and highlights our responsibility to others. Seeing the self as an illusion or nonself, helps us avoid being trapped by our identities. 

The other objection to my idealist collaboration is that these ideas are mutually exclusive. While that is true, they are not exclusive in practice. In all situations look for your true self; assess what you really think or feel in the moment. Use the mind to meditate, practice self control, and inspire yourself. Understand the brain to know your thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are products of experience, evolution, and a desire to survive. Treat the people around you in a way that reflects that understanding. Most of all, know you are not your successes or failures, know that whatever you are in this moment, be it good or bad, it will pass. What is left is to appreciate the sense of being and becoming. 

Other things to consider

Relative to the literature on this topic, I presented mere glimpses of the whole. There are thousands of books, articles, and debates on each of these ideas. As compelling as some of these theories may sound, they all have strong arguments against them. If the soul or mind is the source of the self, then why does the brain dictate all of our identity forming traits? If the self is a product of matter, how do we explain consciousness, qualia, and the millions of phenomenological experiences. While this is not a proper argument, it leaves room for speculation. As for the non-self and the illusory self, even if the self is an illusion, does that make it any less real?  

For those who have made up their minds and for those who are unsure, I challenge you to do these thought experiments. 

 

————————————————————————————- 

 

Work Cited 

Swami Tathagatananda. “The Concept of the Soul of Life in Vedanta.” Vedanta Society of New York, https://www.vedantany.org/articles/blog-post-title-three-74bnh-r3e5a-6xlny-yel5w-hxhj9-gn8gw-lpz6y-65slb-5h3n7-s4lkt-tkyny-htw6z-zhjzc-ex6gt-emwwx-2csc7-xg975-wzdjl-w33e4-kaax4-czjmg-x68n5-dhl8y.

Irwin, Richard. “The Self and the Mind.” Scientific and Medical Network, https://scientificandmedical.net/the-self-and-the-mind/.

Begley, Sharon. “Exploring Both Sides of the Brain-Mind Debate.” Mindful, https://www.mindful.org/mind-vs-brain/.

“The Knowledge Argument.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/.

Amen Clinics. “7 Lessons from Murderers Brain Scans.” Amen Clinics, https://www.amenclinics.com/blog/7-lessons-from-murderers-brain-scans/.

“The Self and the Brain.” Prospect Magazine, https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/59590/the-self-and-the-brain.

Unknown author. “Anatman: Buddhist Doctrine of No Self – Why You Do Not Really Exist.” Philosophy Break, https://philosophybreak.com/articles/anatman-buddhist-doctrine-of-no-self-why-you-do-not-really-exist/.

Unknown author. “Understanding of Self: Buddhism and Psychoanalysis.” Springer Link, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10943-021-01437-w.