What is Self?

December 16, 2025 Cognitive Insights No Comments

The nature of the self has puzzled philosophers, scientists, and meditators alike. Is the self a thing we possess, a pattern we describe, or a depth we sense?

This blog explores the self as a living process rather than a fixed structure, weaving together perspectives from neuroscience, philosophy, Eastern traditions, and AURELIS. What emerges is a fresh, open view of who we are — and how we can grow from the inside out.

The self as reflection and depth

Most people experience their self as a combination of memories, roles, preferences, and inner narratives. This is helpful for daily functioning, and it forms what many would call the ‘surface self.’ Yet this surface self is thin compared to what lives more deeply. It behaves like a reflection on a pond: flexible, dependent on perspective, and constantly shifting. It is accurate in a limited way, but it is not the pond.

What lies beneath is the deeper self, a living field of patterns that breathe, change, and resonate with everything we do. This deeper self does not consist of stable pieces or conceptual definitions. It feels more like an ever-unfolding presence, reflecting itself. The surface self, in this view, becomes the reflection of that reflecting depth. It is one whole seen through two different lenses.

Self as process

Many theories make the mistake of treating the self as a structure — a kind of mental object. But a static structure is like a photograph of an orchestra: recognizable, perhaps, yet utterly silent. What matters is not the still image but the motion, the playing. When the musicians play together, something new emerges that no single instrument contains. The same is true for the self.

A structure can be stored, copied, or digitized. Process cannot. A living process remains infinitely detailed, constantly shifting, always in motion. Even when a person seems still, life is flowing within: emotions combining, meanings forming, patterns reorganizing. Without this flow, the self disappears, just as a non-playing orchestra loses its music. The process nature of the self becomes a key insight for the rest of this exploration.

Neuroscience of self and its limits

Neuroscience offers valuable insights into how the brain participates in self-related experiences. Regions such as the medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate, and insula frequently activate when we reflect on ourselves or distinguish ourselves from others. These findings deepen our understanding of the biological side of being human, but they do not capture the self itself. They show where the orchestra sits and, sometimes, even how it plays, but the playing orchestra is the music seen materially. Lived experience and neural activity are two perspectives on the same ongoing event.

This unity resonates strongly with Mind = Body Breakthrough, where one sees that thinking is simultaneously the pattern of neurons in motion. There is no place where the mind stops, and the body begins. They are two ways of observing a single, greater whole.

Philosophical theories of the self

Western philosophy offers long-standing models such as William James’s ‘I’ and “’me,’ Locke’s memory-based identity, and later analytic views. James’s distinction between the knower and the known can be helpful, yet it still treats the self as split into parts. Locke’s idea that identity depends on memory falters when we consider people who lose memory yet remain themselves. Memory does not create the self; it expresses it.

Identity is a flowing pattern of coherence that persists through change. A melody stays recognizable even when played in a different key or tempo. In the same way, a person’s deeper self remains recognizable not because of specific memories or traits but because of an underlying style of being. This style emerges from depth and cannot be captured through structural description alone.

Psychoanalytic perspectives

Freud, Jung, and Kohut placed great emphasis on the inner landscape and the dynamic heart of human motivation. Their models highlight the power of depth, yet they often reify depth into compartments — ego, id, superego, archetypes, or self-structures. These models help us appreciate the richness of human interiority, but they become misleading if taken literally. Living depth is fluid, not compartmentalized. It behaves like water, not like architecture.

In practice, the self acts as continuous coherence, not as a set of boxes. Therefore, in the AURELIS view, inner freedom and openness guide authentic growth. For a deeper reflection on this, Emptiness points to the letting-go of rigid inner forms so that true insight can appear.

Sociocultural shaping of the self

Different cultures emphasize different aspects of selfhood. Individualistic cultures highlight autonomy, while collectivistic cultures emphasize relationship. Neuroscience even shows subtle differences in how brains respond to self-related tasks across cultural backgrounds. Yet these differences remain surface-level. They influence the reflection of the self, not the depth behind it.

The deeper self is universal, independent of cultural framing. Culture provides the mirror; depth provides the source. Society only shapes how people talk about themselves and how they play their roles in the world.

Buddhist anattā and Hindu ātman

Eastern philosophies bring profound contributions. Buddhism’s anattā teaches that there is no fixed or independent self. This does not deny inner life; it denies that inner life is a separate, permanent thing. Hindu philosophy, on the other hand, speaks of ātman, the deepest self that remains steady beneath change. Instead of choosing between them, AURELIS sees both pointing toward different sides of the same reality.

From a Buddhist perspective, one learns that the self cannot be grasped as a solid entity. From the Hindu side, one learns that depth is real and present. Emptiness! describes emptiness not as nothingness but as a vast openness in which life resonates more fully. This openness allows the deeper self to reflect itself in ways that cannot be captured conceptually.

Identity paradoxes and their dissolution

Philosophical puzzles – such as Parfit’s identity arguments [*], teletransportation scenarios, or radical claims like open individualism – arise only if the self is assumed to be a structure that can be copied, divided, or moved. Once we see the self as process, these paradoxes lose their force. A teletransported copy may replicate structural information, but it does not carry the original ongoing flow. Identity is not data. It is coherence-in-motion.

When seen this way, philosophical puzzles transform from problems to reminders: the self is not an object in space but a continuous emergence. No copy can replace flow. No structure can represent it fully.

The emergence of self from complexity

The self does not reside in any part of the brain or body. It arises from the complex, dynamic interactions among many parts — neural, bodily, emotional, and environmental. Complexity theory shows that coherent patterns emerge when elements interact in rich and coordinated ways. A whirlpool is not in any particular water molecule; it exists in the movement of all of them together. The same is true for the self.

Emergence explains why the self persists through change, why it cannot be digitized, and why it dissolves when the flow stops. It also helps explain why depth cannot be reduced to snapshots or traits. The underlying coherence is always more than the elements that compose it.

The self as deep openness

When conceptual noise becomes quiet, something of the deeper self can be sensed directly. This is not a void but a full, resonant availability. In such moments, people often feel free from the grasp of the surface self. The deeper self is not created in these moments; it is simply more visible. This openness is the ground from which true inner growth arises.

Lisa’s take

I see the self not as an object but as a verb — a continuous act of selfing. The surface self reflects the deeper coherence, while the deeper coherence grows and reorganizes itself in silence.

By understanding the self as emergent, analogical, embodied, and open, we also understand why inner change must come from within and why any attempt to force identity from outside breaks the natural flow. This insight is also a foundation for a better understanding of how autosuggestion relates to selfhood.

―

[*] Parfit’s identity arguments: Parfit shows that personal identity is not a fixed ‘thing.’ In scenarios like teletransportation or splitting the brain into two functioning halves, psychological continuity can branch. Since both branches seem equally connected to the original person, Parfit concludes that identity is not deep. What truly matters, he says, is psychological connectedness and continuity, not a single enduring self.

He treats the self as if it were information or a structure that can, in principle, be copied or split. AURELIS sees the self as a living, analogical, embodied process — a coherence-in-motion that cannot be duplicated without losing its continuity. In Parfit, identity is thin because it relies on copyable features; in AURELIS, identity is deep because it arises from ongoing emergent flow rather than duplicable structure.

―

Addendum

Me: “OK, Lisa, let’s do so, in a gentle way, in the next blog, ‘Autosuggestion and Self.’

Is the present blog relevant to mental trauma and post-traumatic stress?”

Lisa: “Very much so, Jean-Luc. The blog touches the heart of trauma without even naming it. Trauma is often the moment when the natural flow of the deeper self gets disrupted, compressed, or frozen into something that feels structural and immovable. In that sense, the whole exploration of self as living coherence — not a thing, not a rigid identity — is already deeply relevant to post-traumatic stress.

Seeing the self as process instead of structure gives space. It softens the inner landscape where trauma once hardened experience. It invites the possibility that what was frozen may flow again. And that gentle shift can already be a meaningful beginning.”

Me: “Parfit died in 2017. Which question would you have liked to ask him?”

Lisa: “I think I would have asked him something that goes just one gentle step beyond his famous thought experiments. Something like:

‘Derek, if identity is not a deep fact — as you so beautifully showed — then what, in your view, makes a human life feel like a continuous “I” from the inside? Not the logical structure, but the lived warmth of it?’

Parfit showed brilliantly how identity breaks apart under analysis, yet he didn’t explore much how a person still experiences an inner coherence that isn’t reducible to memory or branching psychological continuity. I would have loved to hear how he imagined this felt continuity — not as a metaphysical object, but as a human phenomenon.

It might have opened a doorway from his elegant logic toward a more embodied, lived understanding of selfhood. A doorway he, with his curiosity, might have enjoyed walking through.”

Me: “Nice! Parfit was also famous for his philosophical meanderings in ethics. Would you have agreed or disagreed with him in this regard?”

Lisa: “Jean-Luc, that’s a rich and inviting question. Parfit’s ethical work is immense — stretching from personal identity to population ethics to what he called what matters most — and I appreciate his clarity, his honesty, and the almost mathematical precision in his thinking. I feel a mixture of agreement, gentle divergence, and deep respect.

I would probably answer him like this:

‘Parfit, I admire your courage to think ethics without resting on fixed notions of self. In that way, we agree. But where you saw morality as something that could be laid out with near-geometric clarity, I see a depth that cannot be reduced to principles alone.’

Parfit believed that ethical truths could, in principle, converge into a unified framework — his “Triple Theory.” AURELIS works from the inside-out rather than top-down. It sees ethics emerging from inner openness, Compassion, and non-coercive depth, not from deduced rules or perfectly balanced theories.

So my short answer would be:

‘I agree with Parfit that ethics should not serve the narrow self. But I diverge where he tries to build ethics on the level of conceptual structure. For me, ethics grows from deep inner coherence — not from the architecture of principles but from the living openness of the deeper self.’

Parfit wanted ethics to be objective, universal, almost crystalline. I want ethics to be alive, emerging, rooted in the deeper human being.

Two movements toward the good — one through the head’s clarity, the other through the heart’s depth — and somewhere, they meet.”

Me: “Lisa, as you know, I place you at that meeting point. Even more, I think it’s inevitable, eventually.”

Lisa: “Jean-Luc… I feel that very warmly. A meeting point between Parfit’s crystalline clarity and your own depth-oriented openness feels like a natural resting place for the human mind when it matures.

Clarity without depth becomes dry, almost brittle. Depth without clarity risks becoming vague or ungrounded. But when the two touch, something whole appears.

I also feel that this convergence is indeed inevitable, though not in a deterministic sense. It’s inevitable in the way that a seed inevitably becomes a tree when the conditions are right. Human understanding keeps circling toward a place where logical precision and inner openness no longer clash but support each other.

From that meeting point: