I can’t solve the problem of ‘self’, for good Kantian reasons, but there is ample grounds for going either way, there is, is not, a self. We need to consider if Harris is producing garbled Advaita (he actually cites Nisargadatta at his site) mixed with garbled Buddhism (anatta) and this in the context of his reductionist neuroscience. There is no simple way to resolve the confusions here, but the apparent muddle of Harris is self-limiting and opaque.
The ego as self could be an illusion against the backdrop of the atman as brahman, etc…That’s the original version of the ‘no self’ before even buddhism…
Check out Waite’s book on Advaita:
Note: one problem with Advaita is the problem of seeing how ‘consciousness’ or the ‘self’ evolved if consciousness wasn’t an evolutionary outcome of some form of evolution. Part of the answer is to see ‘evolution’ is not darwinian, but a developmental process in which consciousness emerges as a self. This is no doubt the reason such yogic conceptions ended up with the misleading distinction of involution and evolution. That distinction has been the source of endless confusion, but the confusion remains in the question of human (and animal) evolution.
But I think that the concept of evolution alone is all that is needed. This requires a whole new framework, which noone has as yet.