Daniel Dennett, The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity

in F. Kessel, P. Cole and D. Johnson, eds, Self and Consciousness: Multile Persectives, !illsdale, NJ:
"rl#au$, %&&'. Danish translation, (Selvet so$ fort)llin*ens tyn*deun+t,( Philosohia, %,, '-,.//,
%&/0.
The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity
1hat is a self2 3 4ill try to ans4er this 5uestion #y develoin* an analo*y 4ith so$ethin* $uch
si$ler, so$ethin* 4hich is no4here near as u66lin* as a self, #ut has so$e roerties in co$$on
4ith selves.
1hat 3 have in $ind is the center of *ravity of an o#7ect.
This is a 4ell.#ehaved concet in Ne4tonian hysics. 8ut a center of *ravity is not an ato$ or a
su#ato$ic article or any other hysical ite$ in the 4orld. 3t has no $ass9 it has no color9 it has no
hysical roerties at all, e:cet for satio.te$oral location. 3t is a fine e:a$le of 4hat !ans
;eichen#ach 4ould call an a#stractu$. 3t is a urely a#stract o#7ect. 3t is, if you li+e , a theorist<s
fiction. 3t is not one of the real thin*s in the universe in addition to the ato$s. 8ut it is a fiction that has
nicely defined, 4ell delineated and 4ell #ehaved role 4ithin hysics.
=et $e re$ind you ho4 ro#ust and fa$iliar the idea of a center of *ravity is. Consider a chair. =i+e all
other hysical o#7ects, it has a center of *ravity. 3f you start tiin* it, you can tell $ore or less
accurately 4hether it 4ould start to fall over or fall #ac+ in lace if you let *o of it. 1e<re all 5uite *ood
at $a+in* redictions involvin* centers of *ravity and devisin* e:lanations a#out 4hen and 4hy
thin*s fall over. Place a #oo+ on the chair. 3t, too, has a center of *ravity. 3f you start to ush it over the
ed*e, 4e +no4 that at so$e oint 4ill fall. 3t 4ill fall 4hen its center of *ravity is no lon*er directly
over a oint of its suortin* #ase >the chair seat?. Notice that that state$ent is itself virtually
tautolo*ical. The +ey ter$s in it are all interdefina#le. @nd yet it can also fi*ure in e:lanations that
aear to #e causal e:lanations of so$e sort. 1e as+ (1hy doesn<t that la$ ti over2( 1e rely
(8ecause its center of *ravity is so lo4.( 3s this a causal e:lanation2 3t can co$ete 4ith e:lanations
that are clearly causal, such as: (8ecause it<s nailed to the ta#le,( and (8ecause it<s suorted #y 4ires.(
1e can $aniulate centers of *ravity. For instance, 3 chan*e the center of *ravity of a 4ater itcher
easily, #y ourin* so$e of the 4ater out. So, althou*h a center of *ravity is a urely a#stract o#7ect, it
has a satio.te$oral career, 4hich 3 can affect #y $y actions. 3t has a history, #ut its history can
include so$e rather stran*e eisodes. @lthou*h it $oves around in sace and ti$e, its $otion can #e
discontinuous. For instance, if 3 4ere to ta+e a iece of #u##le *u$ and suddenly stic+ it on the
itcher<s handle, that 4ould shift the itcher<s center of *ravity fro$ oint @ to oint 8. 8ut the center
of *ravity 4ould not have to $ove throu*h all the intervenin* ositions. @s an a#stractu$, it is not
#ound #y all the constraints of hysical travel.
Consider the center of *ravity of a sli*htly $ore co$licated o#7ect. Suose 4e 4anted to +ee trac+
of the career of the center of *ravity of so$e co$le: $achine 4ith lots of turnin* *ears and ca$shafts
and recirocatin* rods..the en*ine of a stea$.o4ered unicycle, erhas. @nd suose our theory of
the $achine<s oeration er$itted us to lot the co$licated tra7ectory of the center of *ravity
recisely. @nd suose..$ost i$ro#a#ly..that 4e discovered that in this articular $achine the
%
tra7ectory of the center of *ravity 4as recisely the sa$e as the tra7ectory of a articular iron ato$ in
the cran+shaft. "ven if this 4ere discovered, 4e 4ould #e 4ron* even to entertain the hyothesis that
the $achine<s center of *ravity 4as >identical 4ith? that iron ato$. That 4ould #e a cate*ory $ista+e. @
center of *ravity is 7ust an a#stractu$. 3t<s 7ust a fictional o#7ect. 8ut 4hen 3 say it<s a fictional o#7ect, 3
do not $ean to disara*e it9 it<s a 4onderful fictional o#7ect, and it has a erfectly le*iti$ate lace
4ithin serious, so#er, echt hysical science.
@ self is also an a#stract o#7ect, a theorist<s fiction. The theory is not article hysics #ut 4hat 4e $i*ht
call a #ranch of eole.hysics9 it is $ore so#erly +no4n as a heno$enolo*y or her$eneutics, or
soul.science >Geistes4issenschaft?. The hysicist does an interretation, if you li+e, of the chair and its
#ehavior, and co$es u 4ith the theoretical a#straction of a center of *ravity, 4hich is then very useful
in characteri6in* the #ehaviour of the chair in the future, under a 4ide variety of conditions. The
her$eneuticist or heno$enolo*ist..or anthroolo*ist..sees so$e rather $ore co$licated thin*s
$ovin* a#out in the 4orld..hu$an #ein*s and ani$als..and is faced 4ith a si$ilar ro#le$ of
interretation. 3t turns out to #e theoretically ersicuous to or*ani6e the interretation around a central
a#straction: each erson has a self >in addition to a center of *ravity?. 3n fact 4e have to osit selves for
ourselves as 4ell. The theoretical ro#le$ of self.interretation is at least as difficult and i$ortant as
the ro#le$ of other.interretation.
No4 ho4 does a self differ fro$ a center of *ravity2 3t is a $uch $ore co$licated concet. 3 4ill try
to elucidate it via an analo*y 4ith another sort of fictional o#7ect: fictional characters in literature. Pic+
u Mo#y Dic+ and oen it u to a*e one. 3t says, (Call $e 3sh$ael.( Call 4ho$ 3sh$ael2 Call
Melville 3sh$ael2 No. Call 3sh$ael 3sh$ael. Melville has created a fictional character na$ed 3sh$ael.
@s you read the #oo+ you learn a#out 3sh$ael, a#out his life, a#out his #eliefs and desires, his acts and
attitudes. Aou learn a lot $ore a#out 3sh$ael then Melville ever e:licitly tells you. So$e of it you can
read in #y i$lication. So$e of it you can read in #y e:traolation. 8ut #eyond the li$its of such
e:traolation fictional 4orlds are si$ly indeter$inate. Thus, consider the follo4in* 5uestion
>#orro4ed fro$ David =e4is<s (Truth and Fiction,( @$erican Philosohical Buarterly, %&-/, %,, .C-.
D0?. Did Sherloc+ !ol$es have three nostrils2 The ans4er of course is no, #ut not #ecause Conan
Doyle ever says that he doesn<t, or that he has t4o, #ut #ecause 4e<re entitled to $a+e that
e:traolation. 3n the a#sence of evidence to the contrary, Sherloc+ !ol$es< nose can #e suosed to #e
nor$al. @nother 5uestion: Did Sherloc+ !ol$es have a $ole on his left shoulder #lade2 The ans4er to
this 5uestion is neither yes nor no. Nothin* a#out the te:t or a#out the rinciles of e:traolation fro$
the te:t er$it an ans4er to that 5uestion. There is si$ly no fact of the $atter. 1hy2 8ecause
Sherloc+ !ol$es is a $erely fictional character, created #y, or constituted out of, the te:t and the
culture in 4hich that te:t resides.
This indeter$inacy is a funda$ental roerty of fictional o#7ects 4hich stron*ly distin*uishes the$
fro$ another sort of o#7ect scientists tal+ a#out: theoretical entities, oor 4hat ;eichen#ach called
illata..inferred entities, such as ato$s, $olecules and neutrinos. @ lo*ician $i*ht say that the (rincile
of #ivalence( does not hold for fictional o#7ects. That is to say, 4ith re*ard to any actual $an, livin* or
dead, the 5uestion of 4hether or not he has or had a $ole on his left shoulder #lade has an an4er, yes
or no. Did @ristotle has such a $ole2 There is a fact of the $atter even if 4e can never discover it. 8ut
4ith re*ard to a fictional character, that 5uestion $ay have no ans4er at all.
1e can i$a*ine so$eone, a #eni*hted literary critic, erhas, 4ho doesn<t understand that fiction is
fiction. This critic has a stran*e theory a#out ho4 fiction 4or+s. !e thin+s that so$ethin* literally
'
$a*ical haens 4hen a novelist 4rites a novel. 1hen a novelist sets do4n 4ords on aer, this critic
says >one often hears clai$s li+e this, #ut not $eant to #e ta+en co$letely literally?, the novelist
actually creates a 4orld. @ lit$us test for this #i6arre vie4 is the rincile of #ivalence: 4hen our
i$a*ined critic sea+s of a fictional 4orld he $eans a stran*e sort of real 4orld, a 4orld in 4hich the
rincile of #ivalence holds. Such a critic $i*ht seriously 4onder 4hether Dr 1atson 4as really
Moriarty<s second cousin, or 4hether the conductor of the train that too+ !ol$es and 1atson to
@ldershot 4as also the conductor of the train that #rou*ht the$ #ac+ to =ondon. That sort of 5uestion
can<t roerly arise if you understand fiction correctly, of course. 1hereas analo*ous 5uestions a#out
historical ersona*es have to have yes or no ans4ers, even if 4e $ay never #e a#le to dred*e the$ u.
Centers of *ravity, as a fictional o#7ects, e:hi#it the sa$e feature. They have only the roerties that
the theory that constitutes the$ endo4ed the$ 4ith. 3f you scratch your head and say, (3 4onder if
$ay#e centers of *ravity are really neutrinosE( you have $isunderstood the theoretical status of a
center of *ravity.
No4 ho4 can 3 $a+e the clai$ that a self..your o4n real self, for instance..is rather li+e a fictional
character2 @ren<t all fictional selves deendent for their very creation on the e:istence of real selves2 3t
$ay see$ so, #ut 3 4ill ar*ue that this is an illusion. =et<s *o #ac+ to 3sh$ael. 3sh$ael is a fictional
character, althou*h 4e can certainly learn all a#out hi$. Fne $i*ht find hi$ in $any re*ards $ore real
than $any of one<s friencds. 8ut, one thin+s, 3sh$ael 4as created #y Melville, and Melville is a real
character..4as a real character. @ real self. Doesn<t this sho4 that it ta+es a real self to create a fictional
self2 3 thin+ not, #ut 3f 3 a$ to convince you, 3 $ust ush you throu*h an e:ercise of the i$a*ination.
First of all, 3 4ant to i$a*ine so$ethin* so$e of you $ay thin+ incredi#le: a novel.4ritin* $achine.
1e can suose it is a roduct of artificial intelli*ence research, a co$uter that has #een desi*ned or
ro*ra$$ed to 4rite novels. 8ut it has not #een desi*ned to 4rite any articular novel. 1e can
suose >if it hels? that it has #een *iven a *reat stoc+ of 4hatever infor$ation it $i*ht need, ans
so$e artially rando$ and hence unredicta#le 4ays of startin* the seed of a story *oin*, and #uildin*
uon it. No4 i$a*ine that the desi*ners are sittin* #ac+, 4onderin* 4hat +ind of novel their creation is
*oin* to 4rite. They turn the thin* on and after a 4hile the hi*h seed rinter #e*ins to *o clic+ety.
clac+ and out co$es the first sentence. (Call $e Gil#ert,( it says. 1hat follo4s is the aarent
auto#io*rahy of so$e fictional Gil#ert. No4 Gil#ert is a fictional, created self #ut its creator is no self.
Ff course there 4ere hu$an desi*ners 4ho desi*ned the $achine, #ut they didn<t desi*n Gil#ert.
Gil#ert is a roduct of a desi*n or invention rocess in 4hich there aren<t any selves at all. That is, 3 a$
stiulatin* that this is not a conscious $achine, not a (thin+er.( 3t is a du$# $achine, #ut it does have
the o4er to 4rite a assa#le novel. >3F you thin+ this is striclty i$ossi#le 3 can only challen*e you to
sho4 4hy you thin+ this $ust #e so, and invite you read on9 in the end you $ay not have an interest in
defendin* such a recarious i$ossi#ilility.clai$.?
So 4e are to i$a*ine that a assa#le story is e$itted fro$ the $achine. Notice that 4e can erfor$ the
sa$e sort of literary e:e*esis 4ith re*ard to this novel as 4e can 4ith any other. 3n fact if you 4ere to
ic+ u a novel at rando$ out of a li#rary, you could not tell 4ith certainty that it 4asn<t 4ritten #y
so$ethin* li+e this $achine. >@nd if you<re a Ne4 Critic you shouldn<t care.? Aou<ve *ot a te:t and you
can interret it, and so you can learn the story, the life and adventures of Gil#ert. Aour e:ectations and
redictions, as you read, and your interretive reconstruction of 4hat you have already read, 4ill
con*eal around the central node of the fictional character, Gil#ert.
C
8ut no4 3 4ant to t4iddle the +no#s on this thou*ht e:eri$ent. So far 4e<ve i$a*ined the novel, The
=ife and Ti$es of Gil#ert, clan+in* out of a co$uter that is 7ust a #o:, sittin* in the corner of so$e
la#. 8ut no4 3 4ant to chan*e the story a little #it and suose that the co$uter has ar$s and le*s..or
#etter: 4heels. >3 don<t 4ant to $a+e it too anthroo$orhic.? 3t has a television eye, and it $oves
around in the 4orld. 3t also #e*ins its tale 4ith (Call $e Gil#ert,( and tells a novel, #ut no4 4e notice
that if 4e do the tric+ that the Ne4 Critics say you should never do, and loo+ outside the te:t, 4e
discover that there<s a truth.reservin* interretation of that te:t in the real 4orld. The adventures of
Gil#ert, the fictional character, no4 #ear a stri+in* and resu$a#ly non.coincidental relationshi to the
adventures of this ro#ot rollin* around in the 4orld. 3f you hit the ro#ot 4ith a #ase#all #at, very
shortly thereafter the story of Gil#ert includes his #ein* hit 4ith a #ase#all #at #y so$e#ody 4ho loo+s
li+e you. "very no4 and then the ro#ot *ets loc+ed in the closed and then says (!el $eE( !el 4ho$2
1ell, hel Gil#ert, resu$a#ly. 8ut 4ho is Gil#ert2 3s Gil#ert the ro#ot, or $erely the fictional self
created #y the ro#ot2 3f 4e *o and hel the ro#ot out of the closet, it sends us a note: (Than+ you. =ove,
Gil#ert.( @t this oint 4e 4ill #e una#le to i*nore the fact that the fictional career of the fictional
Gil#ert #ears an interstin* rese$#lance to the (career( of this $ere ro#ot $ovin* throu*h the 4orld.
1e can still $aintain that the ro#ot<s #rain, the ro#ot<s co$uter, really +no4s nothin* a#out the 4orld9
it<s not a self. 3t<s 7ust a clan+y co$uter. 3t doesn<t +no4 4hat it<s doin*. 3t doesn<t even +no4 that it<s
creatin* a fictional character. >The sa$e is 7ust as true of your #rain9 it doesn<t +no4 4hat it<s doin*
either.? Nevertheless, the atterns in the #ehavior that is #ein* controlled #y the co$uter are
interreta#le, #y us, as accretin* #io*rahy..tellin* the narrative of a self. 8ut 4e are not the only
interreters. The ro#ot novelist is also, of course, an interreter: a self.interreter, rovidin* its o4n
account of its activities in the 4orld.
3 roose that 4e ta+e this analo*y seriously. (1here is the self2( a $aterialist hilosoher or
neuroscientist $i*ht as+. 3t is a cate*ory $ista+e to start loo+in* around for the self in the #rain. Gnli+e
centers of *ravity, 4hose sole roerty is their satio.te$oral osition, selves have a satio.te$oral
osition that is only *rossly defined. ;ou*hly sea+in*, in the nor$al case if there are three hu$an
#ein*s sittin* on a ar+ #ench, there are three selves there, all in a ro4 and rou*hly e5uidistant fro$ the
fountain they face. Fr 4e $i*ht use a rather anti5ue turn of hrase and tal+ a#out ho4 $any souls are
located in the ar+. >(@ll t4enty souls in the star#oard life#oat 4ere saved, #ut those that re$ained on
dec+ erished.(?
8rain research $ay er$it us to $a+e so$e $ore fine.*rained locali6ations, #ut the caacity to achieve
so$e fine.*rained locali6ation does not *ive one *rounds for suosin* that the rocess of locali6ation
can continue indefinitely and that the day 4ill finally co$e 4hen 4e can say, (That cell there, ri*ht in
the $iddle of hioca$us >or 4herever?..that<s the selfE(
There<s a #i* difference, of course, #et4een fictional characters and our o4n selves. Fne 3 4ould stress
is that a fictional character is usually encountered as a fait acco$li. @fter the novel has #een 4ritten
and u#lished, you read it. @t that oint it is too late for the novelist to render deter$inate anythin*
indeter$inate that stri+es your curiosity. Dostoeves+y is dead9 you can<t as+ hi$ 4hat else ;as+olni+ov
thou*ht 4hile he sat in the olice station. 8ut novels don<t have to #e that 4ay. John Gdi+e has 4ritten
three novels a#out ;a##it @n*stro$: ;a##it ;un, ;a##it ;edu:, and ;a##it is ;ich. Suose that those
of us 4ho articularly li+ed the first novel 4ere to *et to*ether and co$ose a list of 5uestions for
Gdi+e..thin*s 4e 4ished Gdi+e has tal+ed a#out in that first novel, 4hen ;a##it 4as a youn* for$er
#as+et#all star. 1e could send our 5uestions to Gdi+e and as+ hi$ to consider 4ritin* another novel in
the series, only this ti$e not continuin* the chronolo*ical se5uence. =i+e =a4rence Durrell<s
D
@le:andria Buarter, the ;a##it series could include another novel a#out ;a##it<s early days 4hen he
4as still layin* #as+et#all, and this novel could ans4er our 5uestions.
Notice 4hat 4e 4ould not #e doin* in such a case. 1e 4ould not #e sayin* to Gdi+e, (Tell us the
ans4ers that you already +no4, the ans4ers that are already fi:ed to those 5uestions. Co$e on, let us
+no4 all those secrets you<ve #een +eein* fro$ us.( Nor 4ould 4e #e as+in* Gdi+e to do research,
as 4e $i*ht as+ the author of a $ulti.volu$e #io*rahy of a real erson, 1e 4ould #e as+in* hi$ to
4rite a ne4 novel, to invent so$e $ore novel for us, on de$and. @nd if he acceded, he 4ould enlar*e
and $a+e $ore deter$inate the character of ;a##it @n*stro$ in the rocess of 4ritin* the ne4 novel.
3n this 4ay $atters 4hich are indeter$inate at one ti$e can #eco$e deter$ined later #y a creative ste.
3 roose that this i$a*ined e:ercise 4ith Gdi+e, *ettin* hi$ to 4rite $ore novels on de$and to
ans4er our 5uestions, is actually a fa$iliar e:ercise. That is the 4ay 4e treat each other9 that is the 4ay
4e are. 1e cannot undo those arts of our asts that are deter$inate, #ut our selves are constantly
#ein* $ade $ore deter$inate as 4e *o alon* in resonse to the 4ay the 4orld i$in*es on us. Ff
course it is also ossi#le for a erson to en*a*e in auto.her$eneutics, interetation of one<s self, and in
articular to *o #ac+ and thin+ a#out one<s ast, and one<s $e$ories, and to rethin+ the$ and re4rite
the$. This rocess does chan*e the (fictional( character, the character that you are, in $uch the 4ay
that ;a##it @n*stro$, after Gdi+e 4rites the second novel a#out hi$ as a youn* $an, co$es to #e a
rather different fictional character, deter$inate in 4ays he 4as never deter$inate #efore. This 4ould #e
an utterly $ysterious and $a*ical rosect >and hence so$ethin* no one should ta+e seriously? if the
self 4ere anythin* #ut an a#stractu$.
3 4ant to #rin* this out #y e:tractin* one $ore feature fro$ the Gdi+e thou*ht e:eri$ent. Gdi+e
$i*ht ta+e u our re5uest #ut then he $i*ht rove to #e for*etful. @fter all, it<s #een $any years since
he 4rote ;a##it ;un. !e $i*ht not 4ant to *o #ac+ and reread it carefully9 and 4hen he 4rote the ne4
novel it $i*ht end u #ein* inconsistent 4ith the first. !e $i*ht have ;a##it #ein* in t4o laces at one
ti$e, for instance. 3f 4e 4anted to settle 4hat the true story 4as, 4e<d #e fallin* into error9 there is no
true story. 3n such a circu$stance there 4ould #e si$ly #e a failure of coherence of all the data that
4e had a#out ;a##it. @nd #ecause ;a##it is a fictional character, 4e 4ouldn<t s$ite our foreheads in
4onder and declare (Fh $y *oodnessE There<s a rift in the universe9 4e<ve found a contradiction in
natureE( Nothin* is easier than contradiction 4hen you<re dealin* 4ith fiction9 a fictional character can
have contradictory roerties #ecause it<s 7ust a fictional character. 1e find such contradictions
intolera#le, ho4ever, 4hen 4e are tryin* to interret so$ethin* or so$eone, even a fictional character,
so 4e tyically #ifurcate the character to resolve the conflict.
So$ethin* li+e this see$s to haen to real eole on rare occasions. Consider the utatively true case
histories recorded in The Three Faces of "ve and Sy#il. >Cor#ett !. Thi*en and !ervey Clec+ly, The
Three Faces of "ve, McGra4 !ill, %&,-, and Flora ;heta Schrei#er, Sy#il, 1arner aer#ac+, %&-C.?
"ve<s three faces 4ere the faces of three distinct ersonalities, it see$s, and the 4o$an ortrayed in
Sy#il had $any different selves, or so it see$s. !o4 can 4e $a+e sense of this2 !ere is one 4ay..a
sole$n, s+etical 4ay favored #y so$e of the sychotheraists 4ith 4ho$ 3<ve tal+ed a#out such
cases: 4hen Sy#il 4ent in to see her theraist the first ti$e, she 4asn<t several different eole rolled
into one #ody. Sy#il 4as a novel.4ritin* $achine that fell in 4ith a very in*enious 5uestioner, a very
ea*er reader. @nd to*ether they colla#orated..innocently..to 4rite $any, $any chaters of a ne4 novel.
@nd, of course, since Sy#il 4as a sort of livin* novel, she 4ent out and en*a*ed in the 4orld 4ith these
ne4 selves, $ore or less created on de$and, under the ea*er su**estion of a theraist.
,
3 no4 #elieve that this is overly s+etical. The oulation e:losion of ne4 characters that tyically
follo4s the onset of sychotheray for sufferers of Multile Personality Disorder >MPD? is ro#a#ly to
#e e:lained alon* 7ust these lines, #ut there is 5uite co$ellin* evidence in so$e cases that so$e
$ultilicity of selves >t4o or three or four, let us say? had already #e*un layin* do4n #io*rahy #efore
the theraist ca$e alon* to do the (readin*(. @nd in any event, Sy#il is only a stri+in*ly atholo*ical
case of so$ethin* 5uite nor$al, a #ehavior attern 4e can find in ourselves. 1e are all, at ti$es,
confa#ulators, tellin* and retellin* ourselves the story of our o4n lives, 4ith scant attention to the
5uestion of truth. 1hy, thou*h do 4e #ehave this 4ay2 1hy are 4e all such inveterate and inventive
auto#io*rahical novelists2 @s G$#erto Maturana has >uncontroversially? o#served: ("verythin* said
is said #y a sea+er to another sea+er that $ay #e hi$self.( 8ut 4hy should one tal+ to oneself2 1hy
isn<t that an utterly idle activity, as syste$atically futile as tryin* to ic+ oneself u #y one<s o4n
#ootstras2
@ central clue co$es fro$ the sort of heno$ena uncovered #y Michael Ga66ani*a<s research on those
rare individuals..the (slit.#rain su#7ects(..4hose corus callosu$ has #een sur*ically severed,
creatin* in the$ t4o lar*ely indeendent cortical he$isheres that can, on occasion, #e differently
infor$ed a#out the current scene. Does the oeration slit the self in t4o2 @fter the oeration, atients
nor$ally e:hi#it no si*ns of sycholo*ical slittin*, aearin* to #e no less unified than you or 3
e:cet under articularly contrived circu$stances. 8ut on Ga66ani*a<s vie4, this does not so $uch
sho4 that the atients have reserved their re.sur*ical unity as that the unity of nor$al life is an
illusion.
@ccordin* to Ga66ani*a, the nor$al $ind is not #eautifully unified, #ut rather a ro#le$atically yo+ed.
to*ether #undle of artly autono$ous syste$s. @ll arts of the $ind are not e5ually accessi#le to each
other at all ti$es. These $odules or syste$s so$eti$es have internal co$$unication ro#le$s 4hich
they solve #y various in*enious and devious routes. 3f this is true >and 3 thin+ it is?, it $ay rovide us
4ith an ans4er to a $ost u66lin* 5uestion a#out conscious thou*ht: 4hat *ood is it2 Such a 5uestion
#e*s for a evolutionary ans4er, #ut it 4ill have to seculative, of course. >3t is not critical to $y
seculative ans4er, for the $o$ent, 4here *enetic evolution and trans$ission #rea+s off and cultural
evolution and trans$ission ta+es over.?
3n the #e*innin*..accordin* to Julian Jaynes >The Fri*ins of Consciousness in the 8rea+do4n of the
8ica$eral Mind, 8oston: !ou*ton Mifflin, %&-0?, 4hose account 3 a$ adatin*..4ere sea+ers, our
ancestors, 4ho 4eren<t really conscious. They so+e, #ut they 7ust sort of #lurted thin*s out, $ore or
less the 4ay #ees do #ee dances, or the 4ay co$uters tal+ to each other. That is not conscious
co$$unication, surely. 1hen these ancestors had ro#le$s, so$eti$es they 4ould (as+( for hel
>$ore or less li+e Gil#ert sayin* (!el $eE( 4hen he 4as loc+ed in the closet?, and so$eti$es there
4ould #e so$e#ody around to hear the$. So they *ot into the ha#it of as+in* for assistance and,
articularly, as+in* 5uestions. 1henever they couldn<t fi*ure out ho4 to solve so$e ro#le$, they
4ould as+ a 5uestion, addressed to no one in articular, and so$eti$es 4hoever 4as standin* around
could ans4er the$. @nd they also ca$e to #e desi*ned to #e rovo+ed on $any such occasions into
ans4erin* 5uestions li+e that..to the #est of their a#ility..4hen as+ed.
Then one day one of our ancestors as+ed a 5uestion in 4hat 4as aarently an inaroriate
ciruc$stance: thre 4as no#ody around to #e the audience. Stran*ely enou*h, he heard his o4n
5uestion, and this sti$ulated hi$, cooeratively, to thin+ of an ans4er, and sure enou*h the ans4er
0
ca$e to hi$. !e had esta#lished, 4ithout reali6in* 4hat he had done, a co$$unication lin+ #et4een
t4o arts of his #rain, #et4een 4hich there 4as, for so$e dee #iolo*ical reason, an accessa#ility
ro#le$. Fne co$onent of the $ind had confronted a ro#le$ that another co$onent could solve9 if
only the ro#le$ could #e osed for the latter co$onentE Than+s to his ha#it of as+in* 5uestions, our
ancestor stu$#led uon a route via the ears. 1hat a discoveryE So$eti$es tal+in* and listenin* to
yourself can have 4onderful effects, not other4ise o#taina#le. @ll that is needed to $a+e sense of this
idea is the hyothesis that the $odules of the $ind have different caacities and 4ays of doin* thin*s,
and are not erfectly interaccessi#le. Gnder such circu$stances it could #e true that the 4ay to *et
yourself to fi*ure out a ro#le$ is to tic+le your ear 4ith it, to *et that art of your #rain 4hich is #est
sti$ulated #y hearin* a 5uestion to 4or+ on the ro#le$. Then so$eti$es you 4ill find yourself 4ith
the ans4er you see+ on the ti of your ton*ue.
This 4ould #e enou*h to esta#lish the evolutionary endorse$ent >4hich $i*ht 4ell #e only culturally
trans$itted? of the #ehavior of tal+in* to yourself. 8ut as $any 4riters have o#served, conscious
thin+in* see$s..$uch of it..to #e a variety of articularly efficient and rivate tal+in* to oneself. The
evolutionary transition to thou*ht is then easy to con7ure u. @ll 4e have to suose is that the route,
the circuit that at first 4ent via $outh and ear, *ot shorter. Peole (reali6ed( that the actual vocali6ation
and audition 4as a rather inefficient art of the loo. 8esides, if there 4ere other eole around 4ho
$i*ht overhear it, you $i*ht *ive a4ay $ore infor$ation than you 4anted. So 4hat develoed 4as a
ha#it of su#vocali6ation, and this in turn could #e strea$lined into conscious, ver#al thou*ht.
3n his osthu$ous #oo+ Fn Thin+in* >ed. Konstantin Kolenda, Toto4a Ne4 Jersey, ;o4$an and
=ittlefield, %&-&?, Gil#ert ;yle as+s: (1hat is =e Penseur doin*2( For #ehaviorists li+e ;yle this is a
real ro#le$. Fne #it of chin.on.fist.4ith.+nitted.#ro4 loo+s retty $uch li+e another #it, and yet
so$e of it see$s to arrive at *ood ans4ers and so$e of it doesn<t. 1hat can #e *oin* on here2
3ronically, ;yle, the arch.#ehaviorist, ca$e u 4ith so$e very sly su**estions a#out 4hat $i*ht #e
*oin* on. Conscious thou*ht, ;yle clai$ed, should #e understood on the $odel of self.teachin*, or
#etter, erhas: self.schoolin* or trainin*. ;yle had little to say a#out ho4 this self.schoolin* $i*ht
actually 4or+, #ut 4e can *et so$e initial understandin* of it on the suosition that 4e are not the
catains of our shis9 there is no conscious self that is unro#le$atically in co$$and of the $ind<s
resources. ;ather, 4e are so$e4hat disunified. Fur co$onent $odules have to act in oortunistic
#ut a$a6in*ly resourceful 4ays to roduce a $odicu$ of #ehavioral unity, 4hich is then enhanced #y
an illusion of *reater unity.
1hat Ga66ani*a<s research reveals, so$eti$es in vivid detail, is ho4 this $ust *o on. Consider so$e of
his evidence for the e:traordinary resourcefulness e:hi#ited #y >so$ethin* in? the ri*ht he$ishere
4hen it is faced 4ith a co$$unication ro#le$. 3n one *rou of e:eri$ents, slit.#rain su#7ects $ust
reach into a closed #a* 4ith the left hand to feel an o#7ect, 4hich they are then to identify ver#ally. The
sensory nerves in the left hand lead to the ri*ht he$ishere, 4hereas the control of seech is nor$ally
in the left he$ishere, #ut for $ost of us, this oses no ro#le$. 3n a nor$al erson, the left hand can
+no4 4hat the ri*ht hand is doin* than+s to the corus collosu$, 4hich +ees #oth he$isheres
$utually infor$ed. 8ut in a slit.#rain su#7ect, this unifyin* lin+ has #een re$oved9 the ri*ht
he$ishere *ets the infor$ation a#out the touched o#7ect fro$ the left hand, #ut the left, lan*ua*e.
controllin*, he$ishere $ust $a+e the identification u#lic. So the (art 4hich can sea+( is +et in
the dar+, 4hile the (art 4hich +no4s( cannot $a+e u#lic its +no4led*e.
There is a devious solution to this ro#le$, ho4ever, and slit.#rain atients have #een o#served to
-
discover it. 1hereas ordinary tactile sensations are reresented contralaterally..the si*nals *o to the
oosite he$ishere..ain si*nals are also reresented isilaterally. That is, than+s to the 4ay the
nervous syste$ is 4ired u, ain sti$uli *o to #oth he$isheres. Suose the o#7ect in the #a* is a
encil. The ri*ht he$ishere 4ill so$eti$es hit uon a very clever tactic: hold the encil in your left
hand so its oint is ressed hard into your al$9 this creates ain, and lets the left he$ishere +no4
there<s so$ethin* shar in the #a*, 4hich is enou*h of a hint so that it can #e*in *uessin*9 the ri*ht
he$ishere 4ill si*nal (*ettin* 4ar$er( and (*ot it( #y s$ilin* or other controlla#le sin*s, and in a
very short ti$e (the su#7ect(..the aarently unified (sole inha#itant( of the #ody..4ill #e a#le to
announce the correct ans4er.
No4 either the slit.#rain su#7ects have develoed this e:traordinarily devious talent as a reaction to
the oeration that landed the$ 4ith such radical accessi#ility ro#le$, or the oeration reveals..#ut
does not create..a virtuoso talent to #e found also in nor$al eole. Surely, Ga66ani*a clai$s, the latter
hyothesis is the $ost li+ely one to investi*ate. That is, it does see$ that 4e are all virtuoso novelists,
4ho find ourselves en*a*ed in all sorts of #ehavior, $ore or less unified, #ut so$eti$es disunified, and
4e al4ays ut the #est (faces( on it 4e can. 1e try to $a+e all of our $aterial cohere into a sin*le
*ood story. @nd that story is our auto#io*rahy.
The chief fictional character at the center of that auto#io*rahy is one<s self. @nd if you still 4ant to
+no4 4hat the self really is, you<re $a+in* a cate*ory $ista+e. @fter all, 4hen a hu$an #ein*<s
#ehavioral control syste$ #eco$es seriously i$aired, it can turn out that the #est her$eneutical story
4e can tell a#out that individual says that there is $ore than one character (inha#itin*( that #ody. This
is 5uite ossi#le on the vie4 of the self that 3 have #een resentin*9 it does not re5uire any fancy
$etahysical $iracles. Fne can discover $ultile selves in a erson 7ust as unro#le$atically as one
could find "arly Aoun* ;a##it and =ate Aoun* ;a##it in the i$a*ined Gdi+e novels: all that has to #e
the case is that the story doesn<t cohere around one self, one i$a*inary oint, #ut coheres >coheres
$uch #etter, in any case? around t4o different i$a*inary oints.
1e so$eti$es encounter sycholo*ical disorders, or sur*ically created disunities, 4here the only 4ay
to interret or $a+e sense of the$ is to osit in effect t4o centers of *ravity, t4o selves. Fne isn<t
creatin* or discoverin* a little #it of *host stuff in doin* that. Fne is si$ly creatin* another
a#straction. 3t is an a#straction one uses as art of a theorical aarastus to understand, and redict, and
$a+e sense of, the #ehavior of so$e very co$licated thin*s. The fact that these a#stract selves see$
so ro#ust and real is not surrisin*. They are $uch $ore co$licated theoretical entities than a center
of *ravity. @nd re$e$#er that even a center of *ravity has a fairly ro#ust resence, once 4e start
layin* around 4ith it. 8ut no one has ever seen or ever 4ill see a center of *ravity. @s David !u$e
noted, no one has ever seen a self, either.
(For $y art, 4hen 3 enter $ost inti$ately into 4hat 3 call $yself, 3 al4ays stu$#le on so$e articular
ercetion or other, of heat or cold, li*ht or shade, love or hatred, ain or leasure. 3 never can catch
$yself at any ti$e 4ithout a erceton, and never can o#serve anythin* #ut the ercetion.... 3f anyone,
uon serious and unre7udiced reflection, thin+s he has a different notion of hi$self, 3 $ust confess 3
can reason no lon*er 4ith hi$. @ll 3 can allo4 hi$ is, that he $ay #e in the ri*ht as 4ell as 3, and that
4e are essentially different in this articular. !e $ay, erhas, erceive so$ethin* si$le and
continued, 4hich he calls hi$self9 thou*h 3 a$ certain there is no such rincile in $e.( >Treatise on
!u$an Nature, 3, 3H, sec. 0.?
/
>This article is #ased on $y su$$ary re$ar+s at the %&/C !ouston Sy$osiu$ on the nature of the
self and consciousness. 3t also dra4s fairly heavily, and 4ithout secific citation, on several recent
aers of $ine, in 4hich the toics discussed here are develoed in $ore detail. ;eferences to these
can #e found in $y recent #oo+ The 3ntentional Stance, M3T Press, %&/-, .:.?
&