The notion of 'persistence of identity' is key to exploring survival of consciousness after bodily death. What is it when 'I' have an experience? Crucial to persistence of identity is memory, in particular the memory of qualia.
The physical matter that makes up your brain is in constant turnover. Cells renew, the biochemistry flows on – and yet a memory from childhood can snap in with astonishing immediacy. You remember conscious experiences from childhood – being at the seaside, the feeling of warmth on wet skin, the salt tang of the sea, seagulls' cries, the sparkle of the sun on the waves. Or shopping before Christmas, snowflakes on your face, the hurrying crowds, the brightly illuminated shop windows, wet pavement at dusk. Complex, multisensory memories of being there, that snap you back decades in an instant.
These qualia memories define the essence, the youness of you, untampered by the ego.
In your life, there have been events, some which proved to be memorable, some of which you have long forgotten. Reminiscences with former classmates highlight gaps in event memory. They remember events involving you that you have forgotten, or vice versa.
But qualia memories linger. Event memory is highly susceptible to ego-narration. It is rarely just 'this happened'; it becomes 'this happened to me'; 'I did well', 'I was wronged', 'I was vindicated', 'I failed', 'I was admired', 'they misunderstood me'. The remembered event is often recruited into the ongoing project of self-construction; a palimpsest.
Qualia memory feels closer to the raw material of consciousness. It does not depend on external validation and is less easily recruited into the ego’s story about itself. Qualia memory may preserve identity more deeply than autobiographical event memory – because it is less contaminated by egoic narration.
The scientist may tell me that memory is reconstructive. Fine. But the qualia flashback is not a forensic claim; it is not a witness statement. It is the resurgence of a conscious texture. Congruence, not a facsimile. When it comes, I know it from within. I instantly recognise it. This was what it was like to be there, then, as me. Me, the observer, the experiencer, not me the ego.
From the point of view of persistence of identity, qualia are a fundamental part of 'what is is like to be me'. And yet, we are told that "to attain spiritual awakening, we must lose the ego".
First-person – the ego as a construct – should be separated from consciousness as an observation platform. Let me explain in the form of a thought-experiment.
![]() |
| Chic stride through piazza - image generated by ChatGPT |
You are walking through a crowded piazza on a sunny day. You have presence. You are tall, attractive. You are attired in cool, expensive clothes, wearing cool, expensive sunglasses; a classy gold watch on your wrist. Your credit card is limitless. People notice you; they look at you admiringly, jealously. They want to be like you. You have status. You feel proud, haughty as you carry yourself through the crowd with supreme confidence.
Now imagine that you are walking through that same piazza, but you are invisible.
No one can see you, but you see, feel, hear and smell the same scene. You are pure consciousness, pure awareness – but there's no ego. This is not not the extinction of the first-person perspective, but the stripping away of the socially reflected self. Consciousness moving across the face of the planet, aware of all around. It's still you, you have identity as observer, but now there's no ego-vehicle. In decades' time, the qualia memory of the scene around you will still flash back, not as an event that sees you playing the lead role, but as the cocktail of sensations of having been there.
The ego relies on external validation; consciousness does not.
When it comes to delving into the mystery of reincarnation, spiritual traditions often speak loosely of 'losing the ego'. This should not be seen as the annihilation of consciousness, nor even the annihilation of individuality, but the loss of possessiveness, vanity, grievance, entitlement, status-hunger and compulsive self-reference.
When it comes to delving into the mystery of reincarnation, there are two schools of thought, two inherited frameworks that shape thinking about reincarnation. One tends towards the dissolution of individual identity after death into a larger field of consciousness (the Buddhist tradition); the other tends towards moral continuity across births, often expressed through karma (the Hindu tradition). Both contain profound insights, but neither quite satisfies me. The first can seem to dissolve the very thing whose persistence we are trying to understand, which we so acutely feel. The second can too easily be reduced to a cosmic ledger of reward and punishment, an instrument of social control.
If there is a middle way, it lies not in the persistence of the ego, but of the witness: an ego-less observer moving through space and time, inhabiting many observation platforms, gathering experience, deepening perception and slowly learning what consciousness is for. Acquiring ever-deeper wisdom across myriad lifetimes, on an upwardly spiralling path of spiritual growth.
Identity does not persist because memory preserves a perfect archive of events. Identity persists because consciousness recognises its own textures across time. Familiarity, instantly recognised; the quintessence of the youness of you.
This time last year:
Awaiting the asphalt from Chynów to Piekut
The sounds of summer
This time four years ago:
My działka - powered by the sun
Poland's town/country divide explored
Half a mile under central Warsaw, on foot
This time 13 years ago:
Dzienniki Kołymskie reviewed
This time 14 years ago
Russia-Poland in Warsaw: the worst day of Euro 2012
This time 14 years ago:
Thirty-one and sixty-three - a short story
This time 17 years ago:
Warsaw rail circumnavigation
This time 18 years ago:
Classic Polish vehicles
This time 19 years ago:
South Warsaw sunset















