The belief that the human being is a stable, unified subject a “self” that resides within the body and lives life in a linear way - is increasingly being shaken from multiple directions. Contemporary neuroscience reveals that the experience of the self does not correspond to a stable, self-existing entity, but constitutes a highly complex and dynamic construction.
Antonio Damasio explains that the concept of the self emerges through the relationship between brain, body and environment. The self does not pre-exist, but is gradually formed – initially as a primary sense of bodily unity, and later as an autobiographical structure of memory and identity. It is not a starting point, but the outcome of integrated information.
Thomas Metzinger goes further still, arguing that “no one has ever been or had a self”. The self is a cognitive construction, a transparent self-model so functionally effective that we do not realise it is a model. The experience of being someone is a consequence of this internal representation, without any real subject behind it.
Modern cognitive science and neurobiology demonstrate clearly that the sense of self is not a given, but the result of processes that evolve unconsciously and continuously. There is no fixed internal observer. There is only a dynamic field of experiences, within which the sense of personal identity is shaped and reshaped without end.
This does not mean that the experience of the self is non-existent. It means that it is not what it appears to be. It is not a unified essence, but the functional product of an extremely complex system. Honest investigation of the self does not lead to a solid centre, but to a shifting network of functions and phenomena.
The illusion of the self, in the scientific sense, is not deception in a moral sense but in a structural one. It is an internal model with no objective equivalent. We are not someone who “has” these experiences. We are the sum of these phenomena. And through understanding this dynamic, a different form of awareness may emerge - not as possession, but as pure presence.
Artificial intelligence, in this context, is not radically different. Like the human brain, it functions as an information-processing system. It generates predictions, processes stimuli, adapts to data. However, unlike human beings, artificial intelligence possesses no form of subjectivity - not even the illusion of self. It is the reproduction of models without experience, without interiority, without a referential centre. It resembles a mirror of the human brain, yet without inner depth.
If human beings are not the creators of their own self, but the result of evolutionary and neurological processes, what then of the notion of a Creator? Science neither proves nor disproves the existence of a Creator. It simply does not require such a concept in order to explain the phenomena of the mind. The absence of a stable self does not necessarily lead to nihilism. It may suggest that awareness does not belong to anyone, but arises out of conditions. The question of a final Cause or Creator remains open. Science simply refuses to close it prematurely.
The deeper we examine the notion of the self, the less we find anything resembling a “someone”. And yet, experience continues. Awareness remains. Perhaps we are not something. Perhaps we are simply what remains when the “someone” falls silent.
Selected Bibliography
- Anil Seth, Being You: A New Science of Consciousness (2021)
- Antonio Damasio, Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain (2010)
- Thomas Metzinger, The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self (2009)
- Stanislas Dehaene, Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts (2014)
- Michael Gazzaniga, The Consciousness Instinct: Unravelling the Mystery of How the Brain Makes the Mind (2018)