Summary: This is a ~50 minute talk (plus some introductory ado) by Thomas Metzinger on the problem of the experiencing, subjective self (why it exists, what it even means, how it arises). Not to be too cliché, but he attacks the problem by dissolving the question, and the solution he arrives at sounds a lot like how an algorithm feels from inside.

Using several examples from neuroscience (particularly the many illuminating failure modes of the brain), he explains how the brain models the self and its place in the center of experiential space. He discusses the limitations of our access to our own cognitive systems, and how those limitations force us to be naive realists.

I hesitate to summarize further, because there is a lot of value in hearing the entire argument. (I will say that he gets a little cute at the end, but that doesn't detract from the excellent content.)

Link: Being No One on Youtube.

(Normally I think LWers dislike the talk format because it's inherently time-consuming, but I'd say this one is information dense and well worth your time.)

Amanda Knox: What's in a face?

Some choice quotes:

The eyes are not windows to the soul. They are organs for converting light into electro-magnetic impulses.

"We were able to establish guilt," said Edgardo Giobbi, the lead investigator, "by closely observing the suspect's psychological and behavioural reaction during the interrogation."

There are several good insights throughout the article, many of which will probably seem familiar to readers of Less Wrong. The few that stood out to me:

1. Fundamental attribution error and the general tendency to create grossly oversimplified mental models of others (while simultaneously overestimating our model's accuracy).
2. Various observational biases, especially egregious on the part of police and investigators. They were so satisfied with the "evidence" of her facial expressions, which is readily available (under the proverbial streetlight), that they felt this obviated the need for additional investigation. It appears that this led them to seek only evidence that further confirmed Knox's guilt (confirmation bias), rather than considering ways to disprove the hypothesis.
3. Not sure what to call this other than the (not-too-well-established) Dunning-Kruger Effect: the tendency of nearly everyone involved to overestimate their ability to judge someone's guilt based on expression reading techniques in which they may or may not be skilled.

Just wanted to point you guys at On the Human, a site which focuses on understanding the science and philosophy of humanism.  There is often overlap between topics there and here at Less Wrong.  The Forum is where most of the articles are posted (basically in blog format).

Apologies if everyone was already aware of them.