The Self Illusion: Why There is No 'You' Inside Your Head [Paperback]

I really enjoyed this book and found it a pleasure to read (albeit you do need to concentrate in parts). The concept that there is no "self" is a pretty hard one to get your head around, although it certainly makes sense to me - and even more so given the evidence that Bruce Hood outlines.

The reason I haven't given the book 5 stars is that I would like to have seen a section/chapter that explores what the concept of "no self" means for the way that we live our lives. That is to say, the fact that we have no consistent personality and are not much more than our brains, which in turn is a collection of (changing) memories, must be a very valuable piece of information when it comes to informing the way we live our lives. The other small criticism I had of the book is that the version I read (the Kindle version) had quite a number of typos which makes me wonder whether the book had been rather rushed into publication.

However, overall, I would strongly recommend this book. It has proved, to me, to be a great introduction to the otherwise illusive and mystical concept of there being "no self".

I enjoyed reading this book. It is well written and provides excellent stories and research that justify the point of the book that ultimately the self is an illusion. You will be thoroughly entertained and thought provoked by finding out why your identity is made up of a multitude of external and internal factors that you never knew could provide such an influence on who you think you are.

However this is a popular science book and not a journal based literature review and there are obvious instances where Bruce's personal opinions are presented without strong evidence and one could be forgiven for taken that as fact given the research he does display. For example when talking about free will he cites a well known study where the brain has already decided on the choice of pressing a button before the conscious mind has decided. This is great evidence to support an arguement against free will but then concludes that because he can plan for a future event that free will isn't always an illusion. Whether he is right or not is not the point but simply that he makes a conclusion without supporting literary evidence.

The glaring error that the book contains is simply this: Bruce assumes that a self illusion is a good thing. He somehow assumes that its those people with a strong sense of self that are better off. This is true for the minority of people who believe they are confident, smart, successful, or positive. But in my experience (and I have a lot!) is that most people's identity is negative and their sense of self is often seen as weak, unconfident, stressed, sad, unhappy and so on. Bruce doesn't acknowledge that a strong sense self can be bad as well as good. In fact his closing statement is that one needs a strong sense of self to survive. However the happiest free-ist people I know are those who have been liberated from 'their' self.

Conclusion: This is a great entertaining read with an abundance of fascinating research. Just be careful what conclusions are made! :-)

This book examines the basic nature of our personal identity from the point of view of neuropsychology. Julian Baggini gave us a fascinating account of it from the point of view of philosophy last year in his book "The Ego Trick". Hood writes an equally fascinating account to address the question, "What (or who) is the `I' that Descartes refers to when he wrote `I think. Therefore I am'"? The inroads into neuroscience is paving the way we look at things, the way we see others, and most importantly, the way we see ourselves. A decade ago the phrase "My brain made me do it" would have brought howls of laughter from people thinking it might be a spoof on criminal conduct. Read Hood and you may see the serious studies in this field.

The competing theories of Galen Strawson (the "pearl view") and Hume's (the "bundle theory") are examined and Hood tells us that modern science is inclining towards the "bundle theory", namely that our "self" emerges not from an accretion of our past experiences - "a bundling together of these experiences". The "pearl theory" holds that our self is a single immovable entity at the core of our existence.

Arising from this, it will become apparent that if the self is a bundling of one's past experiences, then one's memory is an important factor to be studied. Hood tells us that neuroscience shows that possession of memory and identity is what makes us unique individuals. Hood lucidly explains how experiments show this connection that starts with children from about five years of age. He also tells us how the self of the "moment" differs from the self of the "memory". Citing Daniel Kahnemann (whose book `Thinking Fast & Slow' is an essential reading material for all professionals who make judgments for a living - lawyers, doctors, economists etc), he explains that we have about 600,000 experiencing moments a month, each of which lasts about 2 or 3 seconds, but most are lost. That is why our memory is always fragmented, and why we often believe so strongly that our recollection is correct when it is not.

Next, the nature of human learning is also a critical factor in the development of the self. Hood draws on the studies as to how babies learn things, how adults learn things, and using examples of groupthink - shows how and why we think like the group we are in when, if left alone, we actually think differently. If the self - our self - is an accretion of experiences, built up layer by layer, then the question must arise - are we really in control of our thoughts? Hood spends a couple of chapters on his belief that neuroscience indicates that we do not really have free-will. This is, of course, a controversial topic, but if we are to see both sides of the question, we ought to see Hood's view. Right or wrong, it has the merits of clarity.