My apologies for the length and the nature of this post to those that not Smuel.
That's because your sense of self is an illusion.
Smuel, that is a load of bull. And what's worse, it is too easy to see as such.
Oh, let me guess, you know that your sense of self is real because it feels real to you.
I don't feel
my sense of self. I AM
my sense of self. Did not a great philosopher of reason say "I think therefore I am." ?
Well... yes. Of course you can't tell that your own sense of self is an illusion just through introspection. That's why humanity spent millennia completely unaware of the bizarre nature of consciousness. It's only through rigorous observation and reasoning that something like that can be deduced. And even now, when all the evidence is available, most people will still dismiss it with "That doesn't apply to me because I know myself." Yes, I bow before your logic, Einstein. Have a cookie.
Give the damn cookie to a dog by the name Einstein. Has it not been said "The only enlightened state is one of perplexity." ? (Or what is surprise?) All my years of introspection has taught me that you can't
know yourself, any more than you know your own face: E.g. when I was a child, trying to determine which side to part my hair, I got it wrong and it was my sister who corrected me. What you know from introspect (or from a mirror) is a mirror
of yourself and reflections are always wrong because they put the left on the right and right on the left. And if you are under the delusion that the universe doesn't break with left-right symmetry, study quantum physics (which is extremely useful for philosophical thinkers).
Only if you define "sense of self" as the ability to sense yourself via the five senses (or just plain via the mind) is your position accurate (or may be accurate). But I don't define the word "sense" within the phrase "sense of self" to mean the words "sense" "of" "self". I take the phrase to mean more than the sum of its parts. Therefore, the meaning arising from combination of these three words are not found in the individual meanings, but rather the phrase itself should be treated as if it were a single word unto itself.
"I think therefore I am."
All of reality may be nothing more than a dream of a single individual. As I know that I exist, logic concludes that if reality is merely one person's dream, then "I" am that individual. Where "I" is defined by each and everyone of us who has the capacity to experience reality in the first person. But then with whom or what do we interact with? From my religious point-of-view, I could say that that other that I interact with is God himself. From a less religious point-of-view, another might say that it was the universe itself. I care not what name you put on it, but whether what we (or I) interact with is a singular cosmos or plurality of individuals; morality, judgment, ethics and religion all remain exactly the same.
My self of sense is defined by Being, not by knowing or sensing or feeling or thinking or even attempting to define "Me". I know that I am, simply because I exist. And I know the sense of my Self via that existence. It is much the same as holding a piece of wood in your hands and knowing how strong or weak it is without testing it to see if you are right. The cracks, the density, the quality of the wood can be known via touch, but the nature of the wood is Wood and the rest is just variables and permutations of wood being Wood.