@ Ein: Frankly I think there's much more to it than I understand, and I think [you] are oversimplifying it, in the same way we once had a much larger list of "vestigials" than we do now.
Me? Oversimplify?
I personally see my own approach as infinitely complicated and impossible to boil down in any way. I'm suggesting that there is no "self," but that what we call the self is an illusion brought about by consciousness (whose implications I'll discuss below), and in fact is nothing more than a certain amalgamation of material factors working together (not intentionally, mind you) to produce the image of a subject.
Now, what kinds of questions does this raise?? For starters, how does consciousness come about? Traditionally it was thought that there must be a "self" to which consciousness takes hold, so to speak. If there is no self, how does consciousness even happen? What combination of factors must come together to allow for consciousness? And must it always be the same combination?
Why do we perceive things subjectively and causally? These are the two primary representational models that "imagine" us (i.e. put us into perspective) as selves. How are we able to communicate with one another? How does life, or whatever we call "life," spring from inorganic matter? How do we differentiate organic from inorganic? Where do we draw the line? And when it crosses the line, how does energy become "conscious"?
These are all questions that I don't have answers to, although I have theories, and none of them appeal to any metaphysical notion of "self-hood." Instead, I am utterly fascinated by the possibility that human beings are "self-less" conscious organisms that can perceive of themselves as conscious selves. I'm fascinated that through careful thought we can come to distinguish between terms such as "self" and "subject" (which is not making mountains out of molehills, as you sometimes claim, but is in fact indicative of careful scrutiny about the human condition). In short, I'm more fascinated by my understanding of life than any archaic notion of unique individual selves or religious/spiritual teleology.
Ein, do you not believe human beings have an inherent nature? Do you approve of the blank slate theory?
I don't believe that humans have an inherent nature; but I don't identify this as Lockean "blank slate." I do think that genetics matter, and I believe that certain individuals are predisposed toward certain behavior and/or personalities. I don't, however, see any of this as contributing to a unique self. The self requires consciousness to acknowledge itself; I don't believe that pre-conscious organisms can be said to have any kind of "self," genetic or otherwise. Genes and biology are only material factors that go toward creating an organism that we would say fulfills the basic requirements for life, seeking sustenance and fighting for its survival. There is no "self" for organisms such as this. The self is something that only appears when organisms achieve consciousness; and even then, it's an illusion.
Our notions of what constitutes "human" need not appeal even to organisms that we classify as human. We might say that to be "human" one requires a certain genetic makeup and biology, and must exhibit certain behavioral traits. There will, however, always be exceptions to this rule. What about people with intense mental illnesses who do not behave in a "human" manner? What about humans with genetic defects? What about artificial intelligence that might come to speak and behave entirely like a human? Don't we have an ethical responsibility to this thing that, biologically, is not human?
My understanding suggests that we would have such an ethical responsibility because the appearance of consciousness is just that: an appearance, even to us. Thus, it can "appear" for other organisms or entities as well. How could we tell the difference between someone who "truly had consciousness" and someone who was "faking it"? Does one need consciousness in order to "fake it"? In a sense, consciousness might be nothing more than the appearance of consciousness; but this doesn't make it any less important for those "selves" that appear to possess it. If consciousness is nothing more than an extremely complex result of material conditions, then why can't other organisms/entities possess it? Why must it be restricted to "the human"? This throws our entire understanding of what it means to be "human" out the window, in my opinion.
and it goes with out saying that there are an infinite amount of things you don't know, that applies to all. To be verbose you don't necessarily have to be talking about something complex. Maybe my choice of word is off, maybe obscure is better. 
You can be a "know it all" without being a douche.
