A theory of consciousness

The subject-object distinction is really as distinction of two objects, the subject being formed from a combination of concepts/ideas and/or perceptions. No observing subject can be found, phenomenally, mentally or otherwise.


If there is no observer that can be observed any subject-object distinction dissolves into an infinite regress where as soon as a subject is sensed or perceived it is immediately obvious that that subject is an object to that which is observing. In this way, that which is observing, consciousness, is never a object (or subject-as-object) to itself.

Subject-object duality provides a sense of location, identity and opposition. I, the subject, am here, not there, this not that, self not other. It's a useful, some say, a necessary illusion. Illusion because even though in experience there is a strong sense of self and not-self, when put under scrutiny, the subject-object distinction in perception (and mental events) is empty at one end. So there's no actual distinction or duality.

Hello Yffer,
I think I can see what you mean here, but the way in which I proposed subject-object perception was a little different.

You say, "The subject-object distinction is really as distinction of two objects" and "No observing subject can be found, phenomenally, mentally or otherwise.". This seems to be an argument against an "observer" within the mind, which I totally agree with, because the notion of an observer is infinitely regressive (if the observer observes the self, then how does the observer observe, through another observer? ad infinitum...).

But what I proposed was that the Entity of Self, the ego if you will, is itself both subject and object, through interaction with other people it develops these two facets, and this produces perception - because in the recognition that the Self may be observed by other people, the perception of the self is constructed.

Thus, when the Self "observes" another object of the world as Subject to that object, it is also "aware" that it is observing as it is simultaneously an Object alongside the object of the world.

Ach. Perhaps this is not clear, but that's why I want to try to discuss it!



I think here you are talking of a more general, higher level/linguistic use of subject-object, ie. as it pertains to an already fully conscious being in the world. I don't disagree with this per se, but I mean to look into a simpler, emergent feature of subject-object as it functions at the simplest level (within the cortex).