1. On Feb. 15, 1965, a diffident but self-possessed high school student named Raymond Kurzweil₂ appeared as a guest on a game show called I've Got a Secret. He was introduced by the host, Steve Allen, then he played a short musical composition on a piano. The idea was that Kurzweil was hiding an unusual fact and the panellists — they included a comedian and a former Miss America — had to guess what it was.
2. On the show, the beauty queen did a good job of grilling Kurzweil, but the comedian got the win: the music was composed by a computer. Kurzweil got $200.
3. Kurzweil then demonstrated the computer, which he built himself — a desk-size affair with loudly clacking relays, hooked up to a typewriter. The panellists were pretty blasé about it; they were more impressed by Kurzweil's age than by anything he'd actually done. They were ready to move on to Mrs. Chester Loney of Rough and Ready, Calif., whose secret was that she'd been President Lyndon Johnson's first-grade teacher.
4. But Kurzweil would spend much of the rest of his career working out what his demonstration meant. Creating₃ a work of art is one of those activities we reserve for humans and humans only. It's an act of self-expression; you're not supposed to be able to do it if you don't have a self₄. To see creativity, the exclusive domain of humans, usurped by a computer built by a 17-year-old is to watch a line blur that cannot be unblurred, the line between organic intelligence₅ and artificial intelligence.
5. That was Kurzweil's real secret, and back in 1965 nobody guessed it. Maybe not even him, not yet. But now, 46 years later, Kurzweil believes that we're approaching a moment when computers will become intelligent, and not just intelligent but more intelligent than humans. When that happens, humanity — our bodies, our minds, our civilization — will be completely and irreversibly transformed. He believes that this moment is not only inevitable but imminent₇. According to his calculations, the end of human civilization₈ as we know it is about 35 years away.
6. Computers are getting faster. Everybody knows that. Also, computers are getting faster faster — that is, the rate at which they're getting faster is increasing.
7. True? True₉.
8. So if computers are getting so much faster, so incredibly fast, there might conceivably come a moment when they are capable of something comparable to human intelligence. Artificial intelligence. All that horsepower could be put in the service of emulating₁₂ whatever it is our brains are doing when they create consciousness — not just doing arithmetic very quickly or composing piano music but also₁₃ driving cars, writing books, making ethical decisions, appreciating fancy paintings, making witty observations at cocktail parties.
9. If you can swallow that idea, and Kurzweil and a lot of other very smart₁₄ people can, then all bets are off. From that point on, there's no reason₁₅ to think computers would stop₁₆ getting more powerful. They would keep on developing until they were far more intelligent than we are. Their rate of development would also continue to increase, because they would take over their own development₁₇ from their slower-thinking human creators. Imagine a computer scientist that was itself a super-intelligent computer. It would work incredibly quickly. It could draw on huge amounts of data effortlessly. It wouldn't even take breaks to play Farmville.
10. Probably. It's impossible to predict the behavior of these smarter-than-human intelligences with which (with whom?) we might one day share the planet, because₁₉ if you could, you'd be as smart as they would be. But there are a lot of theories about it. Maybe we'll merge with them to become super-intelligent cyborgs₂₀, using computers to extend our intellectual abilities the same₂₁ way that cars and planes extend our physical abilities. Maybe the artificial intelligences will help us treat the effects of old age and prolong our life spans indefinitely₂₃. Maybe we'll scan our consciousnesses₂₄ into computers and live inside them as software₂₅, forever, virtually. Maybe the computers will turn on humanity and annihilate₂₆ us. The one thing all these theories have in common is the transformation of our species into something that is no longer recognizable as such to humanity circa 2011. This transformation has a name: the Singularity₂₇.
11. The difficult thing to keep sight of when you're talking about the Singularity is that even though it sounds like science fiction₂₉, it isn't, no more than a weather forecast is science fiction. It's not a fringe idea; it's a serious hypothesis about the future of life on Earth. There's an intellectual gag reflex that kicks in anytime you try to swallow an idea that involves super-intelligent immortal cyborgs, but suppress it if you can, because while the Singularity appears to be, on the face of it, preposterous, it's an idea that rewards sober, careful evaluation.
12. People are spending a lot of money trying to understand it. The three-year-old Singularity University, which offers inter-disciplinary courses of study for graduate students and executives, is hosted by NASA. Google was a founding sponsor; its CEO and co-founder Larry Page spoke there last year. People are attracted to the Singularity for the shock value, like an intellectual freak show, but they stay because there's more to it than they expected. And of course, in the event that it turns out to be real, it will be the most important thing to happen to human beings since the invention of language₃₃.
13. The Singularity isn't a wholly new idea, just newish. In 1965 the British mathematician I.J. Good described something he called an "intelligence explosion":
    Let an ultraintelligent₃₆ machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an "intelligence explosion," and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention₃₉ that man need ever make.
14. The word singularity is borrowed from astrophysics: it refers to a point in space-time — for example, inside a black hole — at which the rules of ordinary physics do not apply. In the 1980s the science-fiction novelist Vernor Vinge attached it to Good's intelligence-explosion scenario. At a NASA symposium in 1993, Vinge announced that "within 30 years₄₁, we will have the technological means to create super-human intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended."
15. By that time Kurzweil was thinking about the Singularity too. He'd been busy since his appearance on I've Got a Secret. He'd made several fortunes as an engineer and inventor; he founded and then sold his first software company while he was still at MIT. He went on to build the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind — Stevie Wonder was customer No. 1 — and made innovations in a range of technical fields, including music synthesizers and speech recognition. He holds 39 patents and 19 honorary doctorates. In 1999 President Bill Clinton awarded him the National Medal of Technology.
16. But Kurzweil was also pursuing a parallel career as a futurist: he has been publishing his thoughts about the future of human and machine-kind for 20 years, most recently in The Singularity Is Near, which was a best seller when it came out in 2005. A documentary by the same name, starring Kurzweil, Tony Robbins and Alan Dershowitz, among others, was released in January. (Kurzweil is actually the subject of two current documentaries. The other one, less authorized but more informative, is called The Transcendent Man.) Bill Gates has called him "the best person I know at predicting₄₅ the future of artificial intelligence."
17. In real life, the transcendent man is an unimposing figure who could pass for Woody Allen's even nerdier younger brother. Kurzweil grew up in Queens, N.Y., and you can still hear a trace of it in his voice. Now 62, he speaks with the soft, almost hypnotic calm of someone who gives 60 public lectures a year. As the Singularity's most visible champion, he has heard all the questions and faced down the incredulity many, many times before. He's good-natured about it. His manner is almost apologetic: I wish I could bring you less exciting news of the future, but I've looked at the numbers₄₈, and this is what they say, so what else can I tell you?
18. Kurzweil's interest in humanity's cyborganic destiny began about 1980 largely as a practical matter. He needed ways to measure and track the pace of technological progress. Even great inventions can fail if they arrive before their time, and he wanted to make sure that when he released his, the timing was right. "Even at that time, technology was moving quickly enough that the world was going to be different by the time you finished₅₀ a project," he says. "So it's like skeet shooting — you can't shoot at the target." He knew about Moore's₅₁ law, of course, which states that the number of transistors you can put on a microchip doubles about every two years. It's a surprisingly reliable rule of thumb. Kurzweil tried plotting a slightly different curve: the change over time in the amount of computing power, measured in MIPS (millions of instructions per second), that you can buy₅₂ for $1,000.
19. As it turned out, Kurzweil's numbers looked a lot like₅₃ Moore's. They doubled every couple of years. Drawn as graphs, they both made exponential₅₄ curves, with their value increasing by multiples of two instead of by regular increments in a straight line. The curves held eerily steady, even when Kurzweil extended his backward through the decades of pre-transistor computing technologies like relays and vacuum tubes, all the way back to 1900.
20. Kurzweil then ran the numbers on a whole bunch of other key technological indexes₅₅ — the falling cost of manufacturing transistors, the rising clock speed of microprocessors, the plummeting price of dynamic RAM. He looked even further afield at trends in biotech and beyond₅₆ — the falling cost of sequencing DNA and of wireless data service and the rising numbers of Internet hosts and nanotechnology patents. He kept finding the same thing: exponentially accelerating progress. "It's really amazing how smooth₅₇ these trajectories are," he says. "Through thick and thin, war and peace₅₈, boom times and recessions." Kurzweil calls it the law of accelerating returns₅₉: technological progress happens exponentially, not linearly.
21. Then he extended the curves into the future₆₀, and the growth they predicted was so phenomenal, it created cognitive resistance in his mind. Exponential curves start slowly, then rocket skyward toward infinity. According to Kurzweil, we're not evolved₆₁ to think in terms of exponential growth. "It's not intuitive. Our built-in predictors are linear. When we're trying to avoid an animal, we pick the linear prediction of where it's going to be in 20 seconds and what to do about it. That is actually hardwired in our brains."
22. Here's what the exponential curves told him. We will successfully reverse-engineer₆₂ the human brain by the mid-2020s. By the end of that decade, computers will be capable of human-level intelligence. Kurzweil puts the date of the Singularity — never say he's not conservative — at 2045. In that year, he estimates, given the vast increases in computing power and the vast reductions in the cost of same, the quantity of artificial intelligence created will be about a billion times the sum of all the human intelligence that exists today.
23. The Singularity isn't just an idea. It attracts people, and those people feel a bond with one another. Together they form a movement, a subculture; Kurzweil calls it a community. Once you decide to take the Singularity seriously, you will find that you have become part of a small but intense and globally distributed hive of like-minded thinkers known as Singularitarians₆₉.
24. Not all of them are Kurzweilians, not by a long chalk. There's room inside Singularitarianism for considerable diversity₇₀ of opinion about what the Singularity means and when and how it will or won't happen. But Singularitarians share a worldview₇₂. They think in terms of deep time, they believe in the power of technology to shape history, they have little interest in the conventional wisdom about anything, and they cannot believe you're walking around living your life and watching TV as if the artificial-intelligence revolution were not about to erupt and change absolutely everything₇₃. They have no fear of sounding ridiculous; your ordinary citizen's distaste for apparently absurd ideas is just an example of irrational bias, and Singularitarians have no truck with irrationality. When you enter their mind-space you pass through an extreme gradient in worldview, a hard ontological shear that separates Singularitarians from the common run of humanity. Expect turbulence.
25. In addition to the Singularity University, which Kurzweil co-founded, there's also a Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, based in San Francisco. It counts among its advisers Peter Thiel, a former CEO of PayPal and an early investor in Facebook. The institute holds an annual conference called the Singularity Summit. (Kurzweil co-founded that too.) Because of the highly interdisciplinary nature of Singularity theory, it attracts a diverse crowd. Artificial intelligence is the main event, but the sessions also cover the galloping progress of, among other fields, genetics and nanotechnology.
26. At the 2010 summit, which took place in August in San Francisco, there were not just computer scientists but also psychologists, neuroscientists, nanotechnologists, molecular biologists, a specialist in wearable computers, a professor of emergency medicine, an expert on cognition in grey parrots and the professional magician and debunker James "the Amazing" Randi₇₈. The atmosphere was a curious blend of Davos and UFO convention. Proponents of sea-steading — the practice, so far mostly theoretical, of establishing politically autonomous floating communities in international waters — handed out pamphlets. An android chatted with visitors in one corner.
27. After artificial intelligence, the most talked-about topic at the 2010 summit was life extension₈₁. Biological boundaries that most people think of as permanent and inevitable Singularitarians see as merely intractable but solvable₈₂ problems. Death is one of them. Old age is an illness₈₃ like any other, and what do you do with illnesses? You cure them. Like a lot of Singularitarian ideas, it sounds funny at first, but the closer you get to it, the less funny it seems. It's not just wishful thinking; there's actual science going on here.
28. For example, it's well known that one cause of the physical degeneration associated with aging involves telomeres, which are segments of DNA found at the ends of chromosomes. Every time a cell divides, its telomeres get shorter, and once a cell runs out of telomeres, it can't reproduce anymore and dies. But there's an enzyme called telomerase that reverses this process; it's one of the reasons cancer cells live so long. So why not treat regular non-cancerous cells with telomerase₈₄? In November, researchers at Harvard Medical School announced in Nature that they had done just that. They administered telomerase to a group of mice suffering from age-related degeneration. The damage went away. The mice didn't just get better; they got younger.
29. Aubrey de Grey is one of the world's best-known life-extension researchers and a Singularity Summit veteran. A British biologist with a doctorate from Cambridge and a famously formidable beard, de Grey runs a foundation called SENS, or Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence. He views aging as a process of accumulating damage, which he has divided into seven categories, each of which he hopes to one day address using regenerative medicine. "People have begun to realize that the view of aging being something immutable — rather like the heat death of the universe — is simply ridiculous," he says. "It's just childish. The human body is a machine₈₅ that has a bunch of functions, and it accumulates various types of damage as a side effect of the normal function of the machine. Therefore in principal that damage can be repaired periodically. This is why we have vintage cars. It's really just a matter of paying attention. The whole of medicine consists of messing about with what looks pretty inevitable until you figure out how to make it not inevitable."
30. Kurzweil takes life extension seriously too. His father, with whom he was very close, died of heart disease at 58. Kurzweil inherited his father's genetic predisposition; he also developed Type 2 diabetes when he was 35. Working with Terry Grossman, a doctor who specializes in longevity medicine, Kurzweil has published two books on his own approach to life extension, which involves taking up to 200 pills and supplements a day. He says his diabetes is essentially cured, and although he's 62 years old from a chronological perspective, he estimates that his biological age is about 20 years younger.
31. But his goal differs slightly from de Grey's. For Kurzweil, it's not so much about staying healthy as long as possible; it's about staying alive until₈₆ the Singularity. It's an attempted handoff. Once hyper-intelligent artificial intelligences arise, armed with advanced nanotechnology₈₉, they'll really be able to wrestle with the vastly complex, systemic problems associated with aging in humans. Alternatively, by then we'll be able to transfer₉₀ our minds to sturdier vessels such as computers and robots. He and many other Singularitarians take seriously the proposition that many people who are alive today will wind up being functionally₉₁ immortal₉₂.
32. It's an idea that's radical and ancient at the same time. In "Sailing to Byzantium," W.B. Yeats describes mankind's fleshly predicament as a soul fastened to a dying animal. Why not unfasten it and fasten it to an immortal robot instead? But Kurzweil finds that life extension produces even more resistance in his audiences than his exponential growth curves. "There are people who can accept computers being more intelligent than people," he says. "But the idea of significant changes to human longevity — that seems to be particularly controversial₉₃. People invested a lot of personal effort into certain philosophies dealing with the issue of life and death. I mean, that's the major reason we have religion₉₄."
33. Of course, a lot of people think the Singularity is nonsense — a fantasy, wishful thinking, a Silicon Valley version of the Evangelical story of the Rapture, spun by a man who earns his living making outrageous claims and backing them up with pseudoscience. Most of the serious critics focus on the question of whether a computer can truly become intelligent₉₆.
34. The entire field of artificial intelligence, or AI, is devoted to this question. But AI doesn't currently produce the kind₉₈ of intelligence we associate with humans or even with talking computers in movies — HAL or C3PO or Data. Actual Ais tend to be able to master only one highly specific₁₀₀ domain, like interpreting search queries or playing chess. They operate within an extremely specific frame of reference. They don't make conversation at parties. They're intelligent, but only if you define intelligence in a vanishingly narrow way. The kind of intelligence Kurzweil is talking about, which is called strong AI or artificial general intelligence, doesn't exist₁₀₄ yet.
35. Why not? Obviously we're still waiting on all that exponentially growing computing power to get here. But it's also possible that there are things going on in our brains that can't₁₀₅ be duplicated electronically no matter how many MIPS you throw at them. The neurochemical architecture that generates the ephemeral chaos we know as human consciousness may just be too complex and analog₁₀₇ to replicate in digital₁₀₉ silicon. The biologist Dennis Bray was one of the few voices of dissent at last summer's Singularity Summit. "Although biological components act in ways that are comparable to those in electronic circuits," he argued, in a talk titled "What Cells Can Do That Robots Can't," "they are set apart by the huge number of different states they can adopt. Multiple biochemical processes create chemical modifications of protein molecules, further diversified by association with distinct structures at defined locations of a cell. The resulting combinatorial explosion₁₁₀ of states endows living systems with an almost infinite capacity to store information regarding past and present conditions and a unique capacity to prepare for future events." That makes the ones and zeros that computers trade in look pretty crude.
36. Underlying the practical challenges are a host of philosophical₁₁₁ ones. Suppose we did create a computer that talked and acted in a way that was indistinguishable from a human being — in other words, a computer that could pass the Turing test. (Very loosely speaking, such a computer would be able to pass as human in a blind test.) Would that mean that the computer was sentient, the way a human being is? Or would it just be an extremely sophisticated but essentially mechanical automaton₁₁₂ without the mysterious spark of consciousness — a machine with no ghost in it? And how would we know₁₁₃?
37. Even if you grant that the Singularity is plausible, you're still staring at a thicket of unanswerable questions. If I can scan my consciousness₁₁₅ into a computer, am I still me₁₁₆? What are the geopolitics and the socioeconomics₁₁₇ of the Singularity? Who decides who gets to be immortal? Who draws the line₁₁₉ between sentient and non-sentient? And as we approach immortality, omniscience and omnipotence, will our lives still have meaning₁₂₀? By beating death, will we have lost our essential humanity₁₂₁?
38. Kurzweil admits that there's a fundamental level of risk₁₂₂ associated with the Singularity that's impossible to refine away, simply because we don't know what a highly advanced artificial intelligence, finding itself a newly created inhabitant of the planet Earth, would choose to do₁₂₅. It might not feel like competing with us for resources. One of the goals of the Singularity Institute is to make sure not just that artificial intelligence develops but also that the AI is friendly. You don't have to be a super-intelligent cyborg to understand that introducing a superior life-form into your own biosphere is a basic Darwinian₁₂₉ error.
39. If the Singularity is coming, these questions are going to get answers₁₃₁ whether we like it or not, and Kurzweil thinks that trying to put off the Singularity by banning₁₃₃ technologies is not only impossible but also unethical and probably dangerous. "It would require a totalitarian system to implement such a ban," he says. "It wouldn't work. It would just drive these technologies underground₁₃₄, where the responsible scientists who we're counting on to create the defenses would not have easy access to the tools."
40. Kurzweil is an almost inhumanly patient and thorough debater. He relishes it. He's tireless in hunting down his critics so that he can respond to them, point by point, carefully and in detail.
41. Take the question of whether computers can replicate the biochemical complexity of an organic brain. Kurzweil yields no ground there whatsoever. He does not see any fundamental difference₁₃₆ between flesh and silicon that would prevent the latter from thinking. He defies biologists to come up with a neurological mechanism that could not be modelled₁₃₇ or at least matched in power and flexibility by software running on a computer. He refuses to fall on his knees before the mystery of the human brain. "Generally speaking," he says, "the core of a disagreement I'll have with a critic is, they'll say, Oh, Kurzweil is underestimating the complexity of reverse-engineering₁₃₈ of the human brain or the complexity of biology. But I don't believe I'm underestimating the challenge. I think they're underestimating the power of exponential₁₃₉ growth."
42. This position doesn't make Kurzweil an outlier, at least among Singularitarians. Plenty of people make more-extreme predictions. Since 2005 the neuroscientist Henry Markram has been running an ambitious initiative at the Brain Mind Institute of the Ecole Polytechnique in Lausanne, Switzerland. It's called the Blue Brain project, and it's an attempt to create a neuron-by-neuron₁₄₀ simulation of a mammalian brain, using IBM's Blue Gene super-computer. So far, Markram's team has managed to simulate one neocortical column from a rat's brain, which contains about 10,000 neurons. Markram has said that he hopes to have a complete₁₄₁ virtual human brain up and running in 10 years. (Even Kurzweil sniffs at this. If it worked, he points out, you'd then have to educate₁₄₂ the brain, and who knows how long that would take?)
43. By definition, the future beyond the Singularity is not knowable by our linear, chemical, animal brains, but Kurzweil is teeming with theories about it. He positively flogs himself to think bigger and bigger; you can see him kicking against the confines of his aging organic hardware. "When people look at the implications of ongoing exponential growth, it gets harder and harder to accept," he says. "So you get people who really accept, yes, things are progressing exponentially, but they fall off the horse at some point because the implications₁₄₄ are too fantastic. I've tried to push myself to really look."
44. In Kurzweil's future, biotechnology and nanotechnology give us the power to manipulate our bodies and the world around us at will, at the molecular₁₄₅ level. Progress hyperaccelerates, and every hour brings a century's worth of scientific breakthroughs. We ditch Darwin and take charge₁₄₆ of our own evolution. The human genome becomes just so much code to be bug-tested and optimized and, if necessary, rewritten₁₄₈. Indefinite life extension becomes a reality; people die only if they choose to. Death loses its sting once and for all. Kurzweil hopes to bring his dead father back₁₄₉ to life.
45. We can scan our consciousnesses into computers and enter a virtual₁₅₀ existence or swap our bodies₁₅₁ for immortal robots and light out for the edges of space as intergalactic godlings. Within a matter of centuries₁₅₂, human intelligence will have re-engineered and saturated all the matter in the universe. This is, Kurzweil believes, our destiny as a species.
46. Or it isn't. When the big questions get answered, a lot of the action will happen where no one can see it, deep inside the black silicon brains of the computers, which will either bloom bit by bit into conscious minds or just continue in ever more brilliant and powerful iterations of nonsentience₁₅₄.
47. But as for the minor questions, they're already being decided all around us and in plain sight. The more you read about the Singularity, the more you start to see it peeking out at you, coyly, from unexpected directions. Five years ago we didn't have 600 million humans carrying out their social lives over a single electronic network. Now we have Facebook. Five years ago you didn't see people double-checking what they were saying and where they were going, even as they were saying it and going there, using handheld network-enabled digital prosthetics. Now we have iPhones. Is it an unimaginable step to take the iPhones out of our hands and put them into our skulls₁₅₆?
48. Already 30,000 patients with Parkinson's disease have neural implants₁₅₇. Google is experimenting with computers that can drive cars. There are more than 2,000 robots₁₅₈ fighting in Afghanistan alongside the human troops. This month a game show will once again figure in the history of artificial intelligence, but this time the computer will be the guest: an IBM super-computer nicknamed Watson will compete on Jeopardy! Watson runs on 90 servers and takes up an entire room₁₆₀, and in a practice match in January it finished ahead of two former champions, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter. It got every question it answered right, but much more important, it didn't need help understanding the questions (or, strictly speaking, the answers), which were phrased in plain English. Watson isn't strong AI, but if strong AI happens, it will arrive gradually₁₆₁, bit by bit, and this will have been one of the bits.
49. A hundred years from now, Kurzweil and de Grey and the others could be the 22nd century's answer to the Founding Fathers — except unlike the Founding Fathers, they'll still be alive to get credit — or their ideas could look as hilariously retro and dated as Disney's Tomorrowland. Nothing gets old as fast as the future.
50. But even if they're dead wrong about the future, they're right about the present. They're taking the long view and looking at the big picture. You may reject every specific article of the Singularitarian charter, but you should admire Kurzweil for taking the future seriously. Singularitarianism is grounded in the idea that change is real and that humanity is in charge of its own fate and that history might not be as simple as one damn thing after another. Kurzweil likes to point out that your average cell phone is about a millionth the size of, a millionth the price of and a thousand times more powerful than the computer he had at MIT 40 years ago. Flip that forward 40 years and what does the world look like? If you really want to figure that out, you have to think very, very far outside the box. Or maybe you have to think further inside₁₆₂ it than anyone ever has before.

Plug Note

• The Self is important, as it’s the root of Baker’s FPP, and the motivator for all psychological theories of PI, so understanding just what it is supposed to be is central to my concerns.
• The self is what the reflexive pronouns refer to, but this doesn’t get us far. Just what is a self?
• There’s a temptation to equate the Self with the Person, but this is to waste a term, and it is likely that the two terms can come apart₅.
• Nor is it just the personality, though the reification of the personality is probably at the root of the (misguided) intuition that personal identity is broken if the individual suffers a too-radical change of personality.
• It’s not clear to me that SELF is a natural kind concept, so there may not be just one correct answer to its definition.
• But my use will equate a self to an individual with a perspective on the world which – if that individual were a person (as many selves are) – would equal a FPP.
• In "Seth (Anil Kumar) - The real problem", Anil Seth distinguishes five selves (or aspects of the self, considered as “a complex construction generated by the brain”):-
  1. The bodily self₇, which is the experience of being a body and of having a particular body.
  2. The perspectival self₈, which is the experience of perceiving the world from a particular first-person point of view.
  3. The volitional self₉ involves experiences of intention and of agency – of urges to do this or that, and of being the causes of things that happen.
  4. The narrative self is where the ‘I’ comes in, as the experience of being a continuous and distinctive person over time, built from a rich set of autobiographical memories.
  5. And the social self₁₁ is that aspect of self-experience that is refracted through the perceived minds of others, shaped by our unique social milieu.
• Not all individuals towards which we might adopt Daniel Dennett’s Intentional Stance are selves.
• While thermometers are excluded, I’m not sure whether having “a sense of self” is essential for being a self. So, creatures that pass the Mirror Test₁₂ will be Selves, though might not be persons, but others – human infants, gorillas, elephants, dogs, … might be selves even where they fail the test.
• See also my note on Self-consciousness. The division of labour between these two Notes may not be correct and awaits tidying up.
• For a page of Links to this Note, Click here. There are far too many links for an updating run, or even to eyeball, so I’ve not done so. The reading lists below are fairly ample in any case.
• Works on this topic that I’ve actually read, include the following:-
  • Aeon:
    1. "Delistraty (Cody) - The coming-of-age con", 2017, No Abstract, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    2. "Frankish (Keith) - Whatever you think, you don’t necessarily know your own mind", 2016, No Abstract, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    3. "Gerrans (Philip) & Letheby (Chris) - Model hallucinations", 2017, No Abstract, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    4. "McEwen (Bruce) - When is stress good for you?", 2017, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    5. "Morell (Virginia) - What do mirror tests test?", 2019, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    6. "Nanay (Bence) - ‘Know thyself’ is not just silly advice: it’s actively dangerous", 2017, No Abstract, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    7. "Robbins (Joel) - How arrogance can make even an obnoxious person popular", 2017, No Abstract, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    8. "Seth (Anil Kumar) - The real problem", 2016, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    9. "Stitt (Jennifer) - Before you can be with others, first learn to be alone", 2017, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    10. "Tekin (Serife) - Self-evident", 2018, No Abstract, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    11. "Tobia (Kevin Patrick) - Change becomes you", 2017, No Abstract, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    12. "Tobia (Kevin Patrick) - The Phineas Gage effect", 2016, No Abstract, External Link, Internal PDF Link
  • General:
    1. "Ayer (A.J.) - The Self and the Common World", 1946 / 1986
    2. "Borges (Jorge Luis) - Borges and I", 2000, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    3. "Cassam (Quassim) - Kant and Reductionism", 1989, Annotations, Internal PDF Link
    4. "Churchland (Patricia) - Self and Self-Knowledge", 2002
    5. "Dainton (Barry) - Self: Philosophy In Transit: Prologue", 2014
    6. "Dennett (Daniel) - The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity", 1992, Annotations, No Abstract
    7. "Erber (Joan T.) & Szuchman (Lenore T.) - Great Myths of Aging: The Self", 2014
    8. "Gallup (Gordon G.) & Povinelli (Daniel) - Can Animals Empathize?", 1998, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    9. "Geach (Mary) - Human Life, Action and Ethics: Introduction", 2005, No Abstract
    10. "Godelek (Kamuran) - Review of Thomas Metzinger's 'The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self'", 2009, External Link
    11. "Hofstadter (Douglas) & Dennett (Daniel) - Reflections on 'Borges and I'", 1981, External Link
    12. "Jenkins (Phil) - Review of Galen Strawson's 'Selves'", 2010, External Link
    13. "Ludwig (Arnold) - How Did Hitler Live With Himself?", 1997, No Abstract
    14. "Marsh (Stefanie) - Extreme biohacking: the tech guru who spent $250,000 trying to live for ever", 2018, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    15. "Martin (Raymond) - Anticipation", 1998, Internal PDF Link
    16. "Martin (Raymond) - Experience", 1998, Internal PDF Link
    17. "Martin (Raymond) - Identification", 1998, Internal PDF Link
    18. "Martin (Raymond) - Questions", 1998, Internal PDF Link
    19. "Martin (Raymond) - Rejuvenation", 1998, Internal PDF Link
    20. "Martin (Raymond) - Self Concern: Introduction", 1998, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    21. "Martin (Raymond) - Self-Concern: An Experiential Approach to what Matters in Survival", 1998
    22. "Martin (Raymond) - Transformation", 1998, Internal PDF Link
    23. "Nagel (Thomas) - Mind and Body", 1989
    24. "Nagel (Thomas) - Subjective and Objective", 1979, Internal PDF Link
    25. "Nagel (Thomas) - The Objective Self", 1989
    26. "O'Brien (Lucy) - Ambulo Ergo Sum", 2015, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    27. "Pink (Thomas) - Nature, Self, and Power", 2015, External Link
    28. "Shoemaker (Sydney) - Self-Knowledge and Self-Identity: Preface", 1963
    29. "Smith (Barry C.), Broks (Paul), Kennedy (A.L.) & Evans (Jules) - Audio: What Does It Mean to Be Me?", 2015, External Link
    30. "Snowdon (Paul) - Philosophy and the Mind/Body Problem", 2015, External Link
    31. "Snowdon (Paul) - The Self and Personal Identity", 2009, Write-Up Note
    32. "Trigg (Roger) - Ideas of Human Nature: Plato", 1999, No Abstract
    33. "Trigg (Roger) - Ideas of Human Nature: Preface & Introduction", 1999, No Abstract
    34. "UCF - Bibliography: Concepts of Self and Person in Philosophy of Mind and Cognitive Science", 2006, No Abstract
    35. "Wright (Crispin) - The Problem of Self-Knowledge (I)", 2001, No Abstract
• As for a reading list, even the short-list immediately below (originally taken from the reading-list for the section on the Self in Chapter 2 of my Thesis; I’ve not checked this list recently) is rather long, and contains many whole books. I may have to cull several of these further down the line, but it’s worth preserving the full list here.
• So, a further reading list might start with:-
  • Aeon:
    1. "Arikha (Noga) - The Interoceptive Turn", 2019, External Link, Internal PDF Link
  • General:
    1. "Abelson (Raziel) - Person and Self", 1977
    2. "Alexander (Ronald) - The Self, Supervenience and Personal Identity", 1997, Footnote₁₈
    3. "Alweiss (Lilian) - Embodiment and Self-Awareness: Evans, Cassam and Husserl", 2018, Internal PDF Link
    4. "Aune (Bruce) - Speaking of Selves", 1994, Internal PDF Link
    5. "Bermudez (Jose Luis) - Aspects of the Self", 1995, Internal PDF Link
    6. "Bermudez (Jose Luis), Marcel (Anthony) & Eilan (Naomi), Eds. - The Body and the Self", 1995
    7. "Brennan (Andrew) - Fragmented Selves and the Problem of Ownership", 1990, Internal PDF Link
    8. "Burge (Tyler) - Individualism and Self-knowledge", 1988, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    9. "Calkins (Mary Whiton) - Psychology as Science of Selves", 1900, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    10. "Campbell (John) - Past, Space and Self", 1995
    11. "Carruthers (Peter) - The Opacity of Mind: An Integrative Theory of Self-Knowledge", 2013
    12. "Cassam (Quassim) - Self and World", 2001
    13. "Cassam (Quassim) - The Embodied Self", 2011, Annotations, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    14. "Cassam (Quassim), Ed. - Self-Knowledge", 1994
    15. "Castaneda (Hector-Neri) - On the Logic of Attributions of Self-Knowledge to Others", 1966, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    16. "Castaneda (Hector-Neri) - On the Logic of Self-Knowledge", 1967, Internal PDF Link
    17. "Castaneda (Hector-Neri) - The Self and its Guises", 1983, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    18. "Chadwick (Henry) - Philosophical Tradition and the Self", 2001, Internal PDF Link
    19. "Chisholm (Roderick) - On the Observability of the Self", 1969, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    20. "Clark (Stephen) - Deference, Degree and Selfhood", 2005, Internal PDF Link
    21. "Claxton (Guy) - The Wayward Mind: An Intimate History of the Unconscious", 2005
    22. "Coliva (Annalisa) - Self-Knowledge and Commitments", 2009, Internal PDF Link
    23. "Confucius, Lau (D.C.) - The Analects", 1979
    24. "Dainton (Barry) - Self: Philosophy In Transit", 2014
    25. "Dainton (Barry) - The Phenomenal Self", 2008
    26. "Dainton (Barry) - The Phenomenal Self: Preface", 2008, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    27. "Dainton (Barry) - The Self", 2017, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    28. "Dainton (Barry) - The Self and the Phenomenal", 2004, Internal PDF Link
    29. "Dennett (Daniel) - The Reality of Selves", 1991
    30. "Dings (Roy) - Not being oneself - Self-ambiguity in the context of mental disorder", 2020, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    31. "Duncan (Matt) - We are acquainted with ourselves", 2015, Internal PDF Link
    32. "Ehrsson (H. Henrik) - The Experimental Induction of Out-of-Body Experiences", 2007, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    33. "Feinberg (Todd) - Altered Egos: How the Brain Creates the Self", 2001
    34. "Flew (Antony) - Selves", 1949, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    35. "Gallagher (Shaun) - Introduction - A Diversity Of Selves", 2010, Internal PDF Link
    36. "Gallagher (Shaun) & Shear (Jonathan), Eds. - Models of the Self", 2002
    37. "Gallie (Ian) - Is the Self a Substance?", 1936, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    38. "Gallie (Roger) - Thomas Reid: Ethics, Aesthetics and the Anatomy of the Self", 1998
    39. "Ganeri (Jonardon) - Cross-Modality and the Self", 2000, Internal PDF Link
    40. "Geach (Peter) - On Beliefs about Oneself", 1957, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    41. "Graham (George) & Kennedy (Ralph) - Review of Thomas Metzinger's Being No-One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity", 2004, Internal PDF Link
    42. "Haggard (Patrick) - Human volition: towards a neuroscience of will", 2008, Internal PDF Link
    43. "Harre (Rom) - Persons and Selves", 1987
    44. "Harre (Rom) - The Singular Self: An Introduction to the Psychology of Personhood"
    45. "Johnston (Mark) - Relativism and the Self", 1989
    46. "Johnstone (Henry) - Persons and Selves", 1967, Internal PDF Link
    47. "Jones (J.R.) - 'Selves': A Reply to Mr. Flew", 1950, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    48. "Korsgaard (Christine) - Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity", 2009
    49. "Kraay (K.J.) - Externalism, Memory and Self-Knowledge", 2002, Internal PDF Link
    50. "Kupperman (Joel) - Character and Self-Knowledge", 1984, Internal PDF Link
    51. "Lao-Tzu, Lau (D.C.) - Tao Te Ching", 2009
    52. "Lieberman (Matthew D.) & Eisenberger (Naomi I.) - Conflict and Habit: A Social Cognitive Neuroscience Approach to the Self", 2005, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    53. "Lowe (E.J.) - Self, Agency and Mental Causation", 1999, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    54. "Lowe (E.J.) - Substance and Selfhood", 1996
    55. "Ludwig (Arnold) - How do we Know who we are? A Biography of the Self", 1997
    56. "Lybaert (Fauve) - Personal Identity and the Formal Self", 2013, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    57. "Macintyre (Alasdair) - Critical Remarks on The Sources of the Self by Charles Taylor", 1994, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    58. "Madell (Geoffrey) - Identity and Personal Identity", 1981
    59. "Madell (Geoffrey) - Persons and Possible Worlds", 1981
    60. "Madell (Geoffrey) - The Identity of the Self", 1985
    61. "Manser (Anthony) - Problems with the Self", 1983, Internal PDF Link
    62. "Martin (Michael G.F.) - The Limits of Self-Awareness", 2004, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    63. "McCall (Catherine) - The Nature of Persons, Selves, and Human Beings", 1990
    64. "McCullagh (Mark) - Self-Knowledge Failures and First Person Authority", 2002, Internal PDF Link
    65. "McGinn (Colin) - Inverted First-Person Authority", 2004, Internal PDF Link
    66. "McGinn (Colin) - The Self", 1999, No Abstract
    67. "Mencius, Lau (D.C.) - Mencius", 2004
    68. "Metzinger (Thomas) - Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity", 2004
    69. "Metzinger (Thomas) - The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self", 2009
    70. "Noggle (Robert) - Review of Marya Schechtman's 'Constitution of Selves'", 1998, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    71. "O'Brien (Lucy) - On Knowing One’s Own Actions", 2003, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    72. "O'Hear (Anthony), Ed. - Mind, Self and Person", 2015
    73. "Olafson (Frederick) - Comments on Sources of the Self by Charles Taylor", 1994, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    74. "Parrott (Matthew) - Self-Blindness and Self-Knowledge", 2017, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    75. "Perry (John) - Indexicals, Contexts and Unarticulated Constituents", 1995, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    76. "Perry (John) - Review of Bernard Williams' 'Problems of the Self'", 1976, Internal PDF Link
    77. "Perry (John) - Self-Notions", 1990, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    78. "Perry (John) - The Self", 1998, Internal PDF Link
    79. "Persson (Ingmar) - Self-Doubt: Why We are not Identical to Things of Any Kind", 2004, Internal PDF Link
    80. "Pettit (Philip) - My Three Selves", 2020, Internal PDF Link
    81. "Popper (Karl) & Eccles (John) - The Self and Its Brain", 1997
    82. "Proust (Joelle) - Thinking of oneself as the same", 2003, Internal PDF Link
    83. "Puett (Michael) - Constructions of Reality", 2015, No Abstract
    84. "Puett (Michael) & Gross-Loh (Christine) - The Path: A New Way to Think About Everything", 2016
    85. "Ramachandran (V.S.) - Neuroscience - the New Philosophy", 2003, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    86. "Ramachandran (V.S.) - Phantoms in the Brain", 2003, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    87. "Ramachandran (V.S.) - Purple Numbers and Sharp Cheese", 2003, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    88. "Ramachandran (V.S.) - Synapses and the Self", 2003, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    89. "Ramachandran (V.S.) - The Artful Brain", 2003, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    90. "Schechtman (Marya) - Self-Expression and Self-Control", 2004, Internal PDF Link
    91. "Schechtman (Marya) - The Constitution of Selves", 1996
    92. "Schilhab (Theresa S.S.) - What mirror self-recognition in nonhumans can tell us about aspects of self", 2004, Internal PDF Link
    93. "Schwitzgebel (Eric) - Self-Ignorance", 2012, No Abstract, External Link, Internal PDF Link
    94. "Seth (Anil Kumar) - Interoceptive inference, emotion, and the embodied self", 2013, Internal PDF Link
    95. "Shear (Jonathan) - Experiential Clarification of the Problem of Self", 1998, Internal PDF Link
    96. "Shoemaker (Sydney) - Introspection and the Self", 1986, No Abstract
    97. "Shoemaker (Sydney) - Review of Raymond Martin's 'Self-Concern'", 2000, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    98. "Shoemaker (Sydney) - Self-Knowledge and 'Inner Sense': Lecture I: The Object Perception Model", 1994, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    99. "Shoemaker (Sydney) - Self-Knowledge and 'Inner Sense': Lecture II: The Broad Perceptual Model", 1994, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    100. "Shoemaker (Sydney) - Self-Knowledge and 'Inner Sense': Lecture III: The Phenomenal Character of Experience", 1994, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    101. "Shoemaker (Sydney) - Self-Knowledge and Self-Identity", 1963
    102. "Sorabji (Richard) - Self: Ancient and Modern Insights about Individuality, Life, and Death", 2006
    103. "Strawson (Galen) - The Self", 2003
    104. "Strawson (Galen) - The Self?", 2004
    105. "Strawson (Peter) - The First Person - and Others", < 1994, No Abstract
    106. "Syed (Matthew) - Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice", 2011
    107. "Taylor (Charles) - Précis of Sources of the Self", 1994, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    108. "Taylor (Charles) - Reply to Commentators", 1994, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    109. "Taylor (Charles) - Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity", 1989
    110. "Tomberlin (James E.) - Belief, Self-Ascription, and Ontology", 1991, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    111. "Valberg (J.J.) - Dream, Death, and the Self", 2007
    112. "Van Inwagen (Peter) - The Self: the Incredulous Stare Articulated", 2004, Internal PDF Link
    113. "Velleman (David) - Love and Nonexistence", 2008, Internal PDF Link
    114. "Velleman (David) - Practical Reflection", 2007
    115. "Velleman (David) - Self To Self", 1996, Internal PDF Link
    116. "White (Stephen) - Skepticism, Deflation, And The Rediscovery Of The Self", 2004, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    117. "White (Stephen) - What Is It Like to Be a Homunculus?", 1991, No Abstract
    118. "Williams (Bernard) - Knowledge and Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind", 1968, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    119. "Williams (Bernard) - Problems of the Self", 1999
    120. "Williams (Christopher) - Review of Marya Schechtman's 'Constitution of Selves'", 1998, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    121. "Williams (Christopher) - Same and Self", 1989
    122. "Wolf (Susan) - Self-Interest and Interest in Selves", 1986, Internal PDF Link
    123. "Woods (Michael J.) - Reference and Self-Identification", 1968, No Abstract, Internal PDF Link
    124. "Wright (Crispin) - The Problem of Self-Knowledge (II)", 2001, No Abstract
    125. "Zahavi (Dan) - Consciousness and minimal selfhood: Getting clearer on for-me-ness and mineness", 2019, Internal PDF Link
    126. "Zahavi (Dan) - Subjectivity and Selfhood: Investigating the First-Person Perspective", 2005
    127. "Zahavi (Dan) - The experiential self: objections and clarification", 2011, Internal PDF Link
    128. "Zahavi (Dan), Ed. - Self-Awareness, Temporality, And Alterity: Central Topics in Phenomenology", 1998
    129. "Zimmer (Carl) - The Neurobiology of the Self", 2005, Internal PDF Link
• This is mostly a place-holder.