MIRIAM, on Feb 3 1998 you wrote in Serendip Forum,

Last class, we used the observation that paraplegics still experience sense of self as evidence that sense of self does not require the whole nervous system. I think that the I function integrates inputs from all parts of the nervous system to produce a sense of self. When the brain is disconnected from the spinal chord, as in paraplegia, sense of self continues, but sensation and movement of the body from the neck down are no longer included in sense of self. In behavioral neuroscience last semester, we saw a film about a man whose hippocampi had been destroyed by a viral infection, leaving him unable to learn new information. This man, too, still experienced sense of self, but his sense of self did not include actions which he performed only a few minutes before. Thus, while the core of sense of self seems to remain intact when parts of the nervous system are destroyed, some part of it is missing.

I commented,

Miriam, you have touched on a most important subject. Not only of psychology, but of the whole universe. Let me just comment that the 'I function' reminds of the 'ego' as defined by psychoanalysis, where 'ego' is just the Latin name for 'I.' Now, 'self' is much more than 'I.' as I'll attempt to explain soon. For today, I limit myself to stress that the consciousness of the body is quite complex, and that the 'body image' is different to what you are writing about.
Please stay tuned. I wrote the above on-line. J.G.

Now I continue,

I understand the 'I' or 'ego' as the repository of those attributes which an individual feels to represent his 'free will.' It might be theorized that 'free will' is actually a result of the interplay of the 'superego' --conformed by moral-ethical-social successful teachings by respected authority figures-- and the 'id' --a set of inborn genetically determined behaviors related basically to the individual's --and his group's-- survival. (Please refer to "On Survival.")
The concept of 'self' includes the above mentioned components, largely in a fuzzy manner, giving rise to much debate on the free will, where theologians have the upper hand, their arguments being above contest either by philosophy or by science. The New Philosoph is careful not to enter the fray, waiting for scientific studies of the brain to support one of the opposing opinions or to find a common ground.
The self includes other components, of which I'll limit myself here to just the 'body self' or 'body image.' A person suffering from quadriplegia, unable to move or to feel or control most of his body develops a new body image, which is realistic, not pathological. Contrast this situation with the case of "autopagnosia," where a lesion in the brain's parietal lobe results in the patient's inability to point (on demand) to a given body segment, yet he can identify it when touched. The "dysmorphic syndromes" observed in psychotic states, where parts of the body are believed to be missing, are variable and do not follow anatomical pathways.

These aspects are really not so important in the analysis of the body self image. Important is the way an individual realistically accepts or pathologically rejects and attempts to modify his body image.
For the moment, I consider relevant for this contribution to describe another component of the self. It is called the 'self as a story.' Indeed, just read this: "I was born in such date in such place of such parents. My siblings were this and that. I remember my father telling me that "honor is more important than money"...I studied, I did this and that... then I became interested in the Internet, and developed a modern, new philosophy... "

Now, I'll conclude explaining why I commented that the self is the most important thing in the Universe.
The self is what allows us to be an active part of society, which is actually a composite of many selves. It was not until the first human became aware of 'himself' (i.e., of his own self) that he could perceive his clear separation from others and from his surroundings ('social' and 'ecological' selves).
Until then, the Universe had no 'meaning.' If you read my introduction to 'The Game of Analogies,' you will understand my reluctance to exploit analogies to 'make a point.' Yet I believe that the following one is suitable for the present case. If one is asked, "A tree falls in a woods, where no humans are present. Does the fall cause noise?" the answer ought to be, "No, because only humans know how to define 'noise.' Were there hearing animals around, they would hear a loud, startling 'sound'. Otherwise, in complete desolation, there would be only a vibration of the air and of the ground."

Ergo, it is our selves which endow the Universe with meaning!