Since there does not seem to be any definite proof for the existence or non-existence of fairies, How 'bout looking into the
proof for the existence or non-existence of a permanent self?

It used to be that to think of the idea of a non-self as absurd! After all "I" am here typing this , right? But, now it seems absurd to think that there is a self.

But, it seems an error to believe anything blindly and without investigation.

My body, human bodies, less than 1 percent human (by number)

There are 100 trillion microbes living inside of you. That's ten times the number of human cells in your body. And together, those microbes have more than three million genes--150 times the number of "human" genes in your body. If you assembled a genetic senate, your own DNA would have to fight for a single seat. Maybe we aren't quite as human as we thought.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/insidenova/2011/02/less-than-one-percent-human.html

So, the body is definitely not a self, it is more akin to an aquarium or terrarium.

"We" can watch our breath, but , though seems to be controlled, mostly breathing occurs independently based upon causes and conditions.

So, similarly, "We" can watch our thoughts, but , though it seems to be controlled, mostly thoughts occur independently based upon causes and conditions.

Anyway , cutting this short.

But, the challenge is whether there really is or not a permanent self. Maybe this will have to be re-phrased as just, The challenge is whether there really is or not a self.

P.S. (Sure, the one proof is the actual experience of non-self, but that , at this time can't be written on a post.)

And for the Turkeys it was the Apocalypse...

Bryan

Best of luck, gotta go, clowns'l get me...

-triplesponge

Send in the clowns...there's got to be...
This is plain as dirt. Clearly you do not.
This is PURE ignorance. (Then stop pointing it at us.)Your evidence? This is PURE delusion. Consider your very first triplethunk Question fully and so answered.

Side note from Self talk


Okay , you set me up, just back from a meditation session and the "Send in the Clowns song" thought arises, leading me to think of a way to add the "send in the clowns" to the post, but there it is already. Now, this one can be easily dismissed, due to associated thinking, you mentioned clowns in your earlier post, which led my mind to think of clowns, and send in the clowns, and indeed it probably is that way. But, how many Synchronicities does one have to experience to realize that there might be something else going on...

Heya Everyone,

Hmm,

Believing and Knowing,

One can believe something and not know it,

One can not believe something and not know it,

One can know something and not believe it,

One can know something and believe it.

( I have to mull over the above thoughts, or maybe a better brain could jump in ) Might need to be edited.

But , until one experiences what someone else has experienced, they definitely will not know it , but they might believe it , or believe the possibility of the experience. Unless one were omniscient, which is highly unlikely.

So if the general population believes in a self, then that belief should be investigated. It is kind of an intrinsic understanding that we are a self, and if a self isn't something we can point to like a heart or liver. Then what is it?, or is there really a self, or is it an illusion? If It is a holistic, multifarious and nebulous construct, then what is it constructed of? If we think it is constructed of us entirely , then we are wrong on a believing level and a scientific level, even just from a purely biological standpoint.

So, can we assume the body is not the self? If so we can move on.

Then what about energy, or patterns of energy. Well where did the energy come from and where does it go when the body breaks apart. The energy and electrons we use today are the same ones that have been around for billions of years. And, indeed each electron, I have heard that electrons do not age and they are all identical, as we know today, so the self is made up of things that are billions of years old, so we, are actually billions of years old, at least.

So, I ask again, to whomever, for I wish to learn, because there is some clinging to this self concept,

Re-question:

If there is a self, some people believe in it, some people think they know there is one, then where is it? Especially if one can't point to a self why does one believe in it?



Indeed the self concept seems to be a useful one, but also the source for much hatred and greed in the world.

Peace

Bryan

Not as a 'Proof' or 'Falsification' of or for 'Self's Rule'. Ever.Not in safety.As you know or are or to your knowledge? In this same or some other way? Or similarly so assumed aka acquired?See: Weasel Words - Wikipedia
No. No such animal, not in or since Adam A. No Known Proofs Exist nor does the Self. Why do some believe in such? Ignorance, Delusion and all related causes and conditions.No Proof of any utility for said fiction likewise known to date. Would like to see 'one'.

metta, upekkha, rainbows and radios,
-triplethink Bud ha bud ha bud ha
that's are shoes wrotes

-trips on faces

czech on b load a b low, nope zip yawn...
2czech still runnin' w scissors thx, jus' about over & out lookin' in, will be in next time it needz sleeeeeeeep. bee then carry on ...see yer sun day, thank you, Jesus... gKnight.

What do you know about trips on faces? More synchronicities? I have never had a good explanation for that phenomenon. If you do not catch my drift, okay, I`ll let it go.

As to energy, well, if one traces back the origin of where it comes from , in time or place, it just keeps going back
For example, if I eat a potato, the energy derived from it came from the sunlight and the earth, the body absorbs it, and combines with it and things change and move along.

Agreed we can not move along in safety.

Maybe this is a weasel writing and I have to use weasel words, I am sure it is some sort of compliment, so thank you in advance, of not knowing the meaning of weasel words.

Hmmmm, yes the useful utility of the self concept, upon further reflection, does not seem to have useful utility. Except in language perhaps, though it is kind of absurd to say, I think, if there is just thinking, or I feel if there is just feeling. As further proof it is ridiculous to say I farted, it is just based on cause and conditions, there is no I involved in the fart occuring process, it is somewhat uncontrollable.

B real

You can use language and logic to 'prove' the existence of self.

In the sentence "I watch the TV", the verb (watching) separates the subject ('I') from the object (TV).

Anything I can observe or watch or witness cannot also be me. As you say, the body, thoughts and senses can also be observed.

I can with some difficulty then define or describe the 3 parts of speech. The TV is flat, rectangular, black and so on. The verb 'watch' is hard to define. To me it seems like a connecting thread between subject and object.

The subject, 'I', can be defined as Awareness itself; the thing that is doing the watching. I am the Witness. Proof enough? If not, can you prove the TV exists? I don't think I could. Self is true and real only at the level of egoic consciousness, because if you look too closely at the Witness it collapses into nothingess. Subject and object become one.

Just a different angle.

Can you provide definite proof of the 100 trillion microbes living inside me ?

Aren't they just self-replicating sets of organic molecules ??

And molecules just clusters of atoms ???

Atoms are composed of elementary sub-atomic particles ????

And then we are left with weird quantization stuff that we have equations for but no one can really make sense of... ?????

Forget this nonsense... Slap the floor!!

The problem with the question is that since "self" is a holistic, multifarious and nebulous construct, then I am not sure which of the many kinds of self constructs we are supposed to be finding evidence for.

So scientists when talking about selves like to discuss different kinds of self. See for, example, this influential paper (abstract below) for an attempt to demarcate different selves:



To the extent that selves are useful constructs in theories of human behaviour then we can say there are scientific reasons to believe in selves.

sign, blimp, I feel good - Brown, James - TTTF, Mitchell, Joni - lost in the Circle Game - TTTF, zzzz merinin 4czeck gotcha gin -3T

add

jup 25 up 5 down
in some eccentric orbit round sirius

re:above as such

in the pid gin
I wuz
the - 3 birds in paris
I felt unfettered an alive!
knocking on my crypt frum ccbc1 -on the hopin itune box mus be charrlotown 1 agin
mitchell, joni70, celebrate no doubt catcha later local momma
no way
Elvira Kurt Q'ed up in the greater vehicle, human cheeze gotta green no doubt will stick with the cheddar!
3n out

(Slappin' with ya, tag team!)

So what you are implying is that not only there is a self , but also a bunch of selves? That those selves exist because of various conditions, (from reading the excerpt above). When the conditions change the self changes to another more appropriate self? What happens to the self that was just there a minute ago? Sounds like a bunch of impersonal reactions to thoughts , emotions, physical surroundings, etc, Why include a self concept? Not trying to aggravate you , but trying to really and objectively look into this self-concept.

For instance, say one has an emotional reaction to (species‐specific signals of emotional rapport and communication), for instance a friend waves at you, then a positive emotion arises within you, happiness arises, Then one thinks, " I am glad to see such and such, insert continuing storyline here). Why is there such a need to add in the "I" am feeling happiness? There is simply the emotion of happiness arising. The "I" am happy is an after the fact description. This wasn't a good story example, so sorry.

Let me put it this way, Observe a worm, poke it, it will recoil from pain, pain sensation directly perceived with respect to the immediate physical environment, do we add the self concept here when looking at the worm?


Just sayin'

B

Those reactions to thoughts, emotions and physical surroundings are personal not impersonal - they are happening to you, not to anyone else. They are your experiences. The emotion of happiness is existing in your mind, not in your friend's mind. And the worm (likely) doesn't have the level of conscousness awareness, memory and conceptual organisation to tap into the kinds of knowledge and experiences that we talk about when we use the term to talk about humans.

So there aren't a bunch of selves, rather, the term self can refer to different types of self-concept, which rely on different kinds of information. And these different aspects of self all add up to constitute a general sense of self why rely on different sources of information (ie as described in the abstract) - for example, our episodic memories that create a personal history, our ability to distinguish ourselves from other agents, our body sense. our conceptual knowledge of ourself (e.g. our names, where we live, our habits and tendencies, knowledge of how others perceive us), and our awareness of our conscious awareness. None of these things are stable and fixed - they are fluid and dynamic (and a product of conditions), and some aspects will be more in focus at different times (though our self of being a body in space distinct from our environment is relatively constant). There isn't one thing we can hang onto to say "this is my self", as our sense of sense is based on this dynamic conglomeration. So I would not say that are "a self", but rather we have "self-concept(s)" and that plays an important role in determining behaviour.

Note this is my interpretation of a "scientific" meaning of self, as opposed to a buddhist one.

Indeed, what you have written is mostly not opposed to a buddhist view of a self nor a scientific view of self, but rather conjoined. Reality is what it is. Buddha taught to investigate everything for one's self, same as should be done in science.
Everything should be open to investiagation and scrutiny.

To summarize what I understand from your post reply.

1) The "self" is actually a Self-concept,
2)The "self" is fluid, dynamic and not fixed.

You got two in a row

Now , aside from the above, would you consider as a fact that everything comes together and eventually falls apart, and in doing so creates a friction or a tension, and in such a way that nothing , anywhere is stable enough (from a large time perspective) to be considered permanently satisfactory. Take for instance a bridge, it will under go decay and need repairs, will be a real pain in the donkey to upkeep, and no matter what will fall apart. The same could be said of the nearest star, (The Sun), though we don't have any upkeep technology yet. The same is also for the body and mind, as it also is part of the universe, and is subject to decay and impermanence, and is unsatisfactory, as you will see as the aging process continues over the years, such fun.

So, the final question, Could one say that everything is unsatisfactory, because of the very nature of the universe, in that everything is fluid, dynamic and everchanging?

might need to expand on this, but will start there, and thanks for your thoughts.

B

Well, I am not sure how much you still care about the topic of the post title and where you are going with this, but that still in mind I wouldn't say everything is unsatisfactory, no. Everything is dynamic, yes, from a scientific viewpoint. But satisfaction is a human level value judgement in the eye of the beholder. So I don't see Buddhism as a model of reality, but rather a perspective on the human condition - though as a model of reality it can match up well at times.
.

Well, in order not to stir up dukkha, I should let this thread pass away, there are just a few more thoughts.

First, if one has a 16 ounce glass, and it is half full, one might view it pleasantly, ah, half a glass, or one might view it unpleasantly , arg just a half glass left.

Or just view it as it is 8 ounces of water in a 16 ounce glass.

Similarly, one sees a 20 pound pile of sand, next to that is sand castle made from 20 pounds of sand.

Either way it is 20 pounds of sand.

And lastly, one sees a collection of "x" number of Universe stuff. And one sees a collection of the same "x" number of Universe stuff in a human formation.

Either way it is a collection of "x" number of Universe stuff.

I foremostly have to proactively apologize for the above thought, it seems so cold and impersonal. My thinking of humanity does not fall upon these lines, I strive to be compassionate and all that, yeah, I have work to do, for sure. But, what if this really is the case, then why do we cling and crave and people display anger , have wars, hoard resources while others starve, "self" generated dukkha, dukkha, dukkha.
Yup, Ignorance, right? The way it is?

But, if we are just a collection of Universe stuff, then what is there really any reason for craving? And if there is none of the craving , there is no dukkha being generated, right?

Anyway, just thoughts arising and passing away...

Actually, since I don't want to deceive, I take great solace and peace in knowing that's all it is, that we are just a collection of Universe stuff.
Dukkha can even become laughably absurd, I mean how much pain do we have to suffer through, this existence is , sometimes, by definition Ridiculous!

B now

Hi Phi, Good questions for conversation. My angle is this:

1. Yes, a part time self, created by language and consciousness. In deep sleep there is unconsciousness. Nisaggardatta reckons "Awareness becomes consciousness when it has an object". Guys like him live as this Awareness during deep sleep, apparently. Aware 24/24/7.

Some more Nisa: "Consciousness must have a background of Awareness.... But there can be Awareness without Consciousness, as in deep sleep: there is no Consciousness, but on waking one is aware of being in deep sleep".

2. Sounds right to me. Duality happens immediately one wakes and becomes conscious. Duality means there is 'I' and 'other'; 'me' and 'not me'. The most powerful trance. It's power is derived by the fear of non-existence of self.

3. Sounds like enlightenment...?

4. I know what you're saying. If I claim "I am Awareness", then that makes Awareness the object, and then.... what is the 'I' that observes it? But when I direct attention inwards to the thing doing the attending, I find I can't make an object of it. It's like trying to balance on a wet slippery log. And if I succeed for a moment in holding my balance, it sort of collapses in on itself, becomes spacious, frightening, etc. Frightening because I don't want to know the truth.

This is my current understanding from my present point of view...subject to change as I gain more experience, think and read more-

The self is multiple layers of subconscious processes. These processes are developed to create permanent order of the chaos of all the physical reality data that is being perceived.

1_Perception of time............................
2______Perception of duality................
3__________Perception of self........................Arahat
3.1____________agency/centeredness/doer.....Anagami
3.2____________symbols/thoughts.................Sakadagami
3.3____________sensory data/5 senses..........Sotapanna
3.4____________rules of external reality..........A&P

These processes are developed in early infancy and run unnoticed until one looks closely to what is happening in the moment to moment of experience. They also cause stress/dhukka.
Enlightenment occurs when these entangled perception processes are permanently shut down.
Check out -
Object permanence
Mirror stage
Self concept
Self schema vs derived material qualities- List
I don't know how to "prove" subconscious, process, ideas, developmental phases etc. but it is fun to think about.
Just another way to look at it.
~D

Agreed awareness of awareness, maybe trying to find the thing doing the attending, but what if there is no thing (nothing) doing the attending, there is observing but no "observer", I have to keep practicing and contemplating upon this, if there is a this

Gotta Run

Hey, this will take a while to look at, thank you for the info.
I have thought before about your statement:
These processes are developed in early infancy and run unnoticed until one looks closely to what is happening in the moment to moment of experience. They also cause stress/dhukka.
Starting with our first breath and the initial wiring delusion it causes, Again this is just pondering I don't remember my first breath or anything.
But here goes, we are born , we need air, the body panics, there is much pain, the mind/will wants to exist, the mind has the craving to exist, the first breath occurs, the mind links the craving to exist with the occurrence of the first breath, the first breath is pleasant, (or rather a Schopenhauerian pleasure being only the absence of pain), the delusion of mind causing the pleasant sensation is further reinforced, and the self delusion grows as you stated, "These processes are developed in early infancy and run unnoticed until one looks closely to what is happening in the moment to moment of experience. They also cause stress/dhukka." And the processes cause stress/dukkha, precisely because the processes are not in line with actual reality.
But... I gotta contemplate some more...
Yikes

B

Well, almost two years later, it seems there are ideas about the self.

What do we have, a mundane idea of a self, a conventional view, one we use to move around in the world with, i.e. I am tying my shoes, I am stopping at the red light.  But, are these merely thought formations, view formations?  Ideas, concepts of a self, ideas and concepts we could say are a delusion, i.e. beliefs not based upon facts?

Then there is the view of the self as an impermanent process, a self that is there, but it is a self made of impermanent processes.  Again, this seems to be a conventional thought formation, a view formation.  Again, based upon delusion, i.e. beliefs not based upon facts.

Of course, there may be the geeral rebuttal and recoiling of the mind, by way of rationalization, and questioning, what exactly is a fact.  Or what do you mean by what is is?  But, really, if the view of a self is viewed as an impermanent process, then there really is no thing there that can be grasped at and held to be a self?

So, what is any of this self talk, is it really any more than speculation?  I can not find anything that can be pointed to that can be a self, any one thingy.  But, it can be investigated, and be found many many things that are not a self.

And more, it seems there is a view that the idea of no self is some dogmatism , or an escapism, or a delusion itself.  We can look at that too, I suppose.

I also have a side thought, that dogmatism is often used as a label incorrectly.  There are times , it seems, that reproducible pheonomen are explained, and then labled as dogmatism, just because it is often repeated.  But, is not a repriducible phenomenon also often repeated?  So, then how does a person actually know what is dogmatism and what is reproducible phenomenon?

Kind of reluctant to add this, but as is the case, the self as a thought phenomenon, as an experience does not have to happen in daily existence.  And nothing much changes, complex thoughts still arise, complex tasks can still be performed, memory still functions, all that.  But the self mental formation does not have to be there, it can be, but it does not have to.  There is emphasis on have to.  I would bold face the words, have to, but people might think I am yelling.

It seems that we are indoctrinated and enculturated into a societal way of thinking, a paradigm, that infers that we have a self concept running in the mind.  It is just part of the language.

For example, How are you today?  How do you feel?  I am fine.  I am tired.  I am okay, what is up with you?

What do you think of if I call the phenomenon a self delusion?  I do not want to trigger aversion to hearing the idea of the self as a delusion.  But it does cause some conflict in the mind when it is said in this manner.  Not if it is not taken personally though.

So, any proof of a self?

Psi

99.5 %  DNA Match, Would we consider these beings to have a self?


http://www.animals-zone.com/bonobo

I don't think i agree.  I think there is always awareness, just that the awake you often does not recollect what happened during those periods.  Kinda goes along with state dependent memory in that people tend to remember things better if they are in a similar mental and emotional state as when the initial event happened.  In sleep, you have a very very different kind of awareness and a lot of that info just doesn't translate to waking awareness, at least that's been my experience, having once played around a lot with lucid dreaming and the like.  As for Nisaggardatta, I suspect his skill has been to develop a wider ranging awareness that can contain a wider variety of experience and knowledge than the average person such that he is more aware of variant aspects of himself. 
Ok, well if you want to take that definition, yes, I could see how it might be divided.  I tend to think of anything that can be remembered by my conscious self as also being consciousness.  As opposed to say cessation where no one seems to be able to remember  what happened.  But there are definitely experiences where the normal thought processes like labeling, judgement, preferences, stress are not operating, yet awareness is stil there, I could see why some may want to highlight a division between those kinds of experiences by indicating a different terminology is to be used ie awareness but not consciousness.  
I suspect there are varying levels of awareness vs consciousness (using the terms as you are apparently using them), could be that enlightenment is a joining of the two with aspects of both?
I have been going with the concept of the self as being a conglomerate or emergent phenomenon.  Like a slime mold starts as single cells that roam by themselves.  But if the environment is a certain way, the cells all combine together and make an animal type creature.  Some cells develop into appendages, others into eating organs, etc.  It becomes a conglomerate creature and individual cells specialize. If you ask, 'where is the slime mold?' everyone will point at that creature.  But if the environment changes in another way, the cells will return back to their neutral state and the creature will return to autonomous individual cells that go their separate ways. 

I think of consciousness as similar to the slime mold creature which exists as an emergent phenomenon of its consituent parts.  IMO the self definitely exists as much as anything does.  But it does not have a permanent unchanging existence.  Take out some of the cells of a slime mold and it still exists, but now slightly changed.  The same thing for humans, change some of the circumstances or building blocks of the human emergent phenonemon self and the self changes.  It does not IMO necesarily disappear or disintigrate, it's just changes it a bit or maybe a lot, like if you give a plant different nutrients you get similar but slightly changed fruit.  The more the building blocks are altered, the greater the change in self.  That's my current take on it anyway.  I do believe in the existence of self just not in a permanent unchanging self.  

As for proof of existence, how do you prove any existence?  It's usually done by pointing at the physical form and/or having evidence thereof.  You can point at a slime mold or a human body.  And some things can't be seen easily but leave evidence, like electricity.  Self certainly seems to leave evidence as much as anything.  Or can you use 'I think therefor I am?'  Beyond that, I don't know how you prove the existence of anything.  And by scientific theory, you can never totally PROVE the nonexistence of something (sorry Buddhists!) because just because you haven't found something does not mean it doesn't exist somewhere maybe far far away. So we are stuck with opting with what we think is most likely (sorry fairies, you got voted off the island!)
-Eva

'Self' as an emergent phenomenon.  Sounds right eva. 

If one does away with desirous and fearful thinking, the thing can start to disintegrate.

My angle on it is similar. It can definitely be observed that the self develops over the first few years of childhood. I put my summary up on Awake Network. Some people, in the discussions, thought this an unnecessary endeavor. So perhaps not as scientific and convincing as I hoped it would be. I leave you to be the judge:

http://awakenetwork.org/magazine/derek/279

I have some memories from when I was around 1 year old.  Specifically, I have a memory of my 1st birthday when I got a twinkie with a candle in it.  Later verification with my mother proved that was really what I got then so it was not just a dream or fantasy.  I can also remember when I could walk under the kitchen table without ducking and I can remember my thought processes during those times.  I would say that already by 1 year of age or perhaps earlier, I already well understood the concept of 'I' and 'me' as being separate from others and my environment.  I had things I wanted and whatnot as well of course.  But I don're call any concept of being able to manipulate my environment other than simple reaching for stuff type level activities.  I hoped for things and was reactive to what came but I did not plan things or have ideas for manipulating my environment.  My attention span was super short, I was super easily distracted by any new thing or movement and would forget about the thing I had been doing a second earlier.  Language is an interesting one because a vague understanding of what people were saying to me would occur to me but yet I did not understand words each by each or sentences the way I do now.  It was more like people would say stuff and then I would get a general feeling idea of approx what they were meaning. 

Earlier than that, I remember being in my crib and I don't think i was good at walking then, more like the crawl stage, but I don't know my exact age for those memories.  The crib seemed like a huge cage area then.  But already I knew 'me' from others in the family and that I was a separate creature from them and my environment.  I understood the idea that the bars of the big cage were there to keep me from leaving.  I had confidence I could climb out if I wanted but would risk falling and feeling pain which scared me.  After thinking of the potential pain, the idea of trying to escape became much weaker in future attemps to arrive but I did not concsiously think of potential pain again, instead the idea of escaping just would get forgotten about quickly instead of continuing to develop.  The thoughts were the kind that does not use words though, like it happens sometimes in dreams.  I wonder if when people say something is 'awareness' but not 'consciousness' what they mean is the kind of thought that occurs without words vs the kind that occurs with words. 

Anyway, could be that concepts of self evolve in the earliest months when I have no memories, but seems to me from pre 1 year of age, it's already well established. 

Hi, Eva,

That's very interesting. I hope you're not trying to spoil my theory by introducing facts!  But seriously, it is interesting that a sense of self existed already by one years of age.

I've heard that there is a narrow window, between about the ages of 2.0 and 2.5 years, where children can both remember their own birth and have the language skills to describe it. Before that, they don't have sophisticated enough language skills. After that, they don't have the memory.

scanning this ancient thread, finding:

"There are 100 trillion microbes living inside of you. That's ten times the number of human cells in your body."
Since 2011 (the PBS citation), these numbers have been s/w inflated – recent reports are 30 trillion (own) cells in the human body, and 300 trillion guest microbe cells; still a ratio of 1:10, though. These are all, however, science-numbers – as everything, subject to anicca.

sawfoot:
Neisser, U. (1988). Five kinds of self-knowledge. Philosophical psychology, 1(1), 35-59.
…
" To the extent that selves are useful constructs in theories of human behaviour then we can say there are scientific reasons to believe in
selves."

Psi Psi:
The problem with the question is that since "self" is a holistic, multifarious and nebulous construct, then I am not sure which of the many kinds of self constructs we are supposed to be finding evidence for.

sawfoot:
So there aren't a bunch of selves, rather, the term self can refer to different types of self-concept, which rely on different kinds of information.
…
Note this is my interpretation of a "scientific" meaning of self, as opposed to a buddhist one.

Lot of this about psychological notions (and not just from Neisser), which is in general something of a muddle (as also seen in the way so many psychologists think they 'own' buddhism – and also part of why general, popular discussions of buddhism are such a muddle).

One scientist's hypothesis (Antinio Damasio, Self Comes to Mind – Constructing the Conscious Brain, 2010) envisions 3 stages of self functionality, from interpreting the current state of neurological evidence (and mixing in introspection, psychology, and evolutionary findings):
1) protoself – something like an organism's primal awareness of self-boundaries and self-interest;
2) core self – adding recognition of own agency, and more;
3) autobiographical self – probably what most people are talking about here – the level where the self takes itself so seriously, and all hell breaks loose…

Reading Damasio could provide some anchorage here, as he shows plausible functional rationale (and tentative biological structural/functional basis – all, as he puts it, testable hypotheses – albeit no concern for matters of "reality" or "permanence") for a more disciplined morphology of selfs.

Not sure there can be "proof" of anything here. More certain is that it all goes "poof" in the end.

The other thing is shortly after children start to talk, they are already starting to say things like 'Mine!' and whatnot, stealing stuff from other kids, getting upset if their stuff is taken away, etc. Even before they can talk, they are peaved if you take stuff away.  Greed is already clearly evident from the earliest!  But as I said, I haven't memories from birth so don't know what happens in those earliest.  I do have some memories of thinking about earlier experiences too, but not even those go back to near birth.  I  have nothing that came before crawling stage I don't think so self could develop in those times for all I know.  Memory is an area of interest for me.  There is a concept called state dependent memory that says that you can remember things more easily when you are in a similar state as you were when the original thing happened that you are trying to remember.  An example, when happy, you could remember happy things easier.  I suspect it works for overall personality and sense of self.  I suspect I can't remember my earlieset months because my consciousness may have been too different from my later consciousness.  Anyway, it's a theory.  

Oh and as for object permanence, my memories of those are more like having the attention span of a nat, if someone removed something from my view, I just forgot about it in about a nanosecond.  It's not that I really thought it had disappeared from reality.  When something disappeared from view, for a second or so, I briefly did think it was likely around somewhere, I scanned for it briefly, then figured it was lost to my ability to get.  I think the prob, at least for me, was not that I thought it was gone like disappeared, but that my attention span would not hold on long enough to plan and try to get it.  It's like a huge case of helplessness and lack of attention.  Once something disappears, it's too hard to get, I had no confidence in my ability to find it, and also my mind just flicked very quickly to something else that was grabbing my attention more.  The sense experiences would quickly distract from something that had been taken out of sensory range.  ONce something was out of my vision and perception it was just forgotten about right away.  But if it came back into view, I did have the concept that it might be the same thing that had been lost for a while (maybe) and was now found again, but such complicated thoughts didn't seem important so I didn't spend much time wondering about it either.  The important thing was simply that the thing was back in view again and I liked it yay!  ;-P

One of the probs with scientists observing behavior, unless the organism is an older human that can be asked with words, they can observe the behavior but they can only guess the processing that goes on behind the behavior.  You see that a lot with dog training, different trainers have different ideas and mental constructs about why dogs do what they do and they argue about them a LOT.  
-Eva 

http://buddhismnow.com/2014/07/09/self-is-heavy-by-buddhadasa-bhikku/



Buddhadasa Bhikku, What he writes really, really sychronizes with the way I am experiencing things.  It is a good common sense article.


Psi

This also ryhymes and chimes with what can be experienced...

Ayya Khema
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books4/Ayya_Khema_Meditating_on_No_Self.htm


Psi