-
Is there a real you?
-
This might seem to you
like a very odd question.
-
Because, you might ask,
-
how do we find the real you,
-
how do you know what the real you is?
-
And so forth.
-
But the idea that there must be a real you,
-
surely that's obvious.
-
If there's anything real
in the world, it's you.
-
Well, I'm not quite sure.
-
At least we have to understand
a bit better what that means.
-
Now certainly, I think there are
lots of things in our culture around us
-
which sort of reinforce the idea
-
that for each one of us,
we have a kind of a core, an essence.
-
There is something about what it means
to be you which defines you,
-
and it's kind of permanent and unchanging.
-
The most kind of crude way
in which we have it,
-
are things like horoscopes.
-
You know, people are very wedded
to these, actually.
-
People put them on their Facebook profile
-
as though they are meaningul,
-
you even know
your Chinese horoscope as well.
-
There are also
more scientific versions of this,
-
all sorts of ways of profiling
personality type,
-
such as the Myers-Briggs tests,
for example.
-
I don't know if you've done those.
-
A lot of companies
use these for recruitment.
-
You answer a lot of questions,
-
and this is supposed to reveal
something about your core personality.
-
And of course, the popular fascination
with this is enormous.
-
In magazines like this, you'll see,
-
in the bottom left corner,
they'll advertise in virtually every issue
-
some kind of personality thing.
-
And if you pick up one of those magazines,
-
it's hard to resist, isn't it?
-
Doing the test to find
what is your learning style,
-
what is your loving style,
or what is your working style?
-
Are you this kind of person or that?
-
So I think that we have a common-sense idea
-
that there is a kind of core
or essence of ourselves
-
to be discovered.
-
And that this is kind of a permanent truth
about ourselves,
-
something that's the same throughout life.
-
Well, that's the idea I want to challenge.
-
And I have to say now,
I'll say it a bit later,
-
but I'm not challenging this
just because I'm weird,
-
the challenge actually has a very,
very long and distinguished history.
-
Here's the common-sense idea.
-
There is you.
-
You are the individuals you are,
and you have this kind of core.
-
Now in your life, what happens
is that you, of course,
-
accumulate different experiences
and so forth.
-
So you have memories,
-
and these memories help
to create what you are.
-
You have desires, maybe for a cookie,
-
maybe for something
that we don't want to talk about
-
at 11 o'clock in the morning
in a school.
-
You will have beliefs.
-
This is a number plate
from someone in America.
-
I don't know whether this number plate,
which says "messiah 1,"
-
indicates that the driver
believes in the messiah,
-
or that they are the messiah.
-
Either way, they have beliefs
about messiahs.
-
We have knowledge.
-
We have sensations and experiences as well.
-
It's not just intellectual things.
-
So this is kind of
the common-sense model, I think,
-
of what a person is.
-
There is a person who has all the things
that make up our life experiences.
-
But the suggestion
I want to put to you today
-
is that there's something
fundamentally wrong with this model.
-
And I can show you what's wrong
with one click.
-
Which is there isn't actually a "you"
at the heart of all these experiences.
-
Strange thought?
Well, maybe not.
-
What is there, then?
-
Well, clearly there are memories,
desires, intentions, sensations,
-
and so forth.
-
But what happens is
these things exist,
-
and they're kind of all integrated,
-
they're overlapped, they're connected
in various different ways.
-
They're connecting partly,
and perhaps even mainly,
-
because they all belong to one body
and one brain.
-
But there's also a narrative,
a story we tell about ourselves,
-
the experiences we have
when we remember past things.
-
We do things because of other things.
-
So what we desire
is partly a result of what we believe,
-
and what we remember is also
informing us what we know.
-
And so really, there are all these things,
-
like beliefs, desires,
sensations, experiences,
-
they're all related to each other,
-
and that just is you.
-
In some ways, it's a small difference
from the common-sense understanding.
-
In some ways, it's a massive one.
-
It's the shift between thinking of yourself
-
as a thing which has
all the experiences of life,
-
and thinking of yourself
as simply that collection
-
of all experiences in life.
-
You are the sum of your parts.
-
Now those parts are also physical parts,
of course,
-
brains, bodies and legs and things,
-
but they aren't so important, actually.
-
If you have a heart transplant,
you're still the same person.
-
If you have a memory transplant,
are you the same person?
-
If you have a belief transplant,
would you be the same person?
-
Now this idea, that what we are,
the way to understand ourselves,
-
is as not of some permanent being,
which has experiences,
-
but is kind of a collection of experiences,
-
might strike you as kind of weird.
-
But actually, I don't think
it should be weird.
-
In a way, it's common sense.
-
Because I just invite you
to think about, by comparison,
-
think about pretty much anything else
in the universe,
-
maybe apart from the
very most fundamental forces or powers.
-
Let's take something like water.
-
Now my science isn't very good.
-
We might say something like
water has two parts hydrogen
-
and one parts oxygen, right?
-
We all know that.
-
I hope no one in this room
thinks that what that means
-
is there is a thing called water,
and attached to it
-
are hydrogen and oxygen atoms,
-
and that's what water is.
-
Of course we don't.
-
We understand, very easily,
very straightforwardly,
-
that water is nothing more
-
than the hydrogen and oxygen molecules
suitably arranged.
-
Everything else in the universe is the same.
-
There's no mystery about my watch,
for example.
-
We say the watch has a face, and hands,
-
and a mechanism and a battery,
-
But what we really mean is,
-
we don't think
there is a thing called the watch
-
to which we then attach all these bits.
-
We understand very clearly
that you get the parts of the watch,
-
you put them together,
and you create a watch.
-
Now if everything else
in the universe is like this,
-
why are we different?
-
Why think of ourselves
-
as somehow not just being
a collection of all our parts,
-
but somehow being a separate,
permanent entity which has those parts?
-
Now this view is not particularly new,
actually.
-
It has quite a long lineage.
-
You find it in Buddhism,
-
you find it in 17th,
18th-century philosophy
-
going through to the current day,
people like Locke and Hume.
-
But interestingly, it's also a view
-
increasingly being heard reinforced
by neuroscience.
-
This is Paul Broks,
he's a clinical neuropsychologist,
-
and he says this:
-
"We have a deep intuition
that there is a core,
-
an essence there,
and it's hard to shake off,
-
probably impossible to shake off,
I suspect.
-
But it's true that neuroscience shows
that there is no centre in the brain
-
where things do all come together."
-
So when you look at the brain,
-
and you look at how the brain
makes possible a sense of self,
-
you find that there isn't
a central control spot in the brain.
-
There is no kind of center
where everything happens.
-
There are lots of different processes
in the brain,
-
all of which operate, in a way,
quite independently.
-
But it's because of the way
that they relate
-
that we get this sense of self.
-
The term I use in the book,
I call it the ego trick.
-
It's like a mechanical trick.
-
It's not that we don't exist,
-
it's just that the trick is
to make us feel that inside of us
-
is something more unified
than is really there.
-
Now you might think
this is a worrying idea.
-
You might think that if it's true,
-
that for each one of us there is
no abiding core of self,
-
no permanent essence,
-
does that mean that really,
the self is an illusion?
-
Does it mean that we really don't exist?
-
There is no real you.
-
Well, a lot of people actually do use
this talk of illusion and so forth.
-
These are three psychologists,
Thomas Metzinger, Bruce Hood,
-
Susan Blackmore,
-
a lot of these people do talk
the language of illusion,
-
the self is an illusion, it's a fiction.
-
But I don't think this is
a very helpful way of looking at it.
-
Go back to the watch.
-
The watch isn't an illusion,
because there is nothing to the watch
-
other than a collection of its parts.
-
In the same way,
we're not illusions either.
-
The fact that we are, in some ways,
just this very, very complex collection,
-
ordered collection of things,
-
does not mean we're not real.
-
I can give you
a very sort of rough metaphor for this.
-
Let's take something like a waterfall.
-
These are the Iguazu Falls, in Argentina.
-
Now if you take something like this,
-
you can appreciate the fact
that in lots of ways,
-
there's nothing permanent about this.
-
For one thing, it's always changing.
-
The waters
are always carving new channels.
-
with changes and tides and the weather,
-
some things dry up,
new things are created.
-
Of course the water that flows
through the waterfall
-
is different every single instance.
-
But it doesn't mean that
the Iguazu Falls are an illusion.
-
It doesn't mean it's not real.
-
What it means is we have
to understand what it is
-
as something which has a history,
-
has certain things that keep it together,
-
but it's a process, it's fluid,
it's forever changing.
-
Now that, I think, is a model
for understanding ourselves,
-
and I think it's a liberating model.
-
Because if you think that you have
this fixed, permanent essence,
-
which is always the same,
throughout your life, no matter what,
-
in a sense you're kind of trapped.
-
You're born with an essence,
-
that's what you are until you die,
-
if you believe in an afterlife,
maybe you continue.
-
But if you think of yourself
as being, in a way,
-
not a thing as such,
but a kind of a process,
-
something that is changing,
-
then I think that's quite liberating.
-
Because unlike the the waterfalls,
-
we actually have the capacity to channel
-
the direction of our development for ourselves
to a certain degree.
-
Now we've got to be careful here, right?
-
If you watch the X-Factor too much,
you might buy into this idea
-
that we can all be whatever we want to be.
-
That's not true.
-
I've heard some fantastic musicians
this morning,
-
and I am very confident
that I could in no way be as good as them.
-
I could practice hard
and maybe be good,
-
but I don't have
that really natural ability.
-
There are limits to what we can achieve.
-
There are limits to what
we can make of ourselves.
-
But nevertheless, we do have
this capacity
-
to, in a sense, shape ourselves.
-
The true self, as it were then,
-
is not something that is just there
for you to discover,
-
you don't sort of look into your soul
and find your true self,
-
What you are partly doing, at least,
-
is actually creating your true self.
-
And this, I think, is very,
very significant,
-
particularly at this stage of life you're at.
-
You'll be aware of the fact
-
how much of you changed over recent years.
-
If you have any videos of yourself,
three or four years ago,
-
you probably feel embarrassed
because you don't recognize yourself.
-
So I want to get that message over,
that what we need to do
-
is think about ourselves as things
that we can shape,
-
and channel and change.
-
This is the Buddha, again:
-
"Well-makers lead the water,
-
fletchers bend the arrow,
-
carpenters bend a log of wood,
-
wise people fashion themselves."
-
And that's the idea
I want to leave you with,
-
that your true self is not something
that you will have to go searching for,
-
as a mystery, and maybe never ever find.
-
To the extent you have a true self,
-
it's something that you in part discover,
-
but in part create.
-
and that, I think,
is a liberating and exciting prospect.
-
Thank you very much.