By the way, you already asked this question 4 times.
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2026
2 points (62.5% liked)
Philosophy
1856 readers
1 users here now
Discussion of philosophy
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
@hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
I’m asking because I want to hear perspectives from different people.
Sure, I mean you phrased it a different way. But I think it's roughly still the same people around here in the philosophy community as it was 1 week ago. Just sayin... But maybe there is more perspectives around...
@hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
That’s a fair point. Thanks.
I don't think there is an observer. There's just consciousness and its content. Obviously I have a subjective point of view but that doesn't mean there's a centre to my counsciousness where the self is located.
@Iconoclast@feddit.uk
So, do you think that the self is a collection of consciousness?
From the standpoint of the paper, we do not consider the self to be a collection of consciousness.
Furthermore, we do not equate the self with the observing subject.
The observing subject is Absolute Subjectivity, which is neither something that appears as content within consciousness nor something that can be defined as a personal self belonging to an individual.
What is commonly referred to as the ‘self’ is merely a construct that appears within consciousness.
Absolute Subjectivity, on the other hand, is the foundational source of observation itself. Some may refer to it as the Creator or as God.
No, I don't think there's such a thing as a self. It's just an illusion. Obviously there's a difference between something happening in my consciousness versus someone else's, so subjectivity is real, but there's no one in the center doing the observing. It's just appearances in consciousness - sounds, sensations, thoughts, feelings... Nothing wills them into existence. They just appear from seemingly nowhere. You can't really think a thought before you think it.
What is 'observing'? Building an abstracted model based in things that imply the thing, like reflected photons?
@youcantreadthis@quokk.au
I think that’s a really sharp perspective — I’ve honestly never met someone who sees it quite like that.
It actually feels very close to the viewpoint developed in a paper I’ve been working with.
There’s a version of this idea that’s been a bit more structurally organized, so if you’re interested, feel free to take a quick look.
This is a short video.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1avaxYY6gl-3kcnVhqSRwXY8TY-FLVFun/view?usp=drivesdk