Self-as-subject and experiential ownership

Abstract

In what follows, I investigate the distinction between the sense of self-as-object and the sense of self-as-subject, and propose an account that is different from Shoemaker’s immunity principle. I suggest that this distinction can be elucidated by examining two types of self-experience: the sense of body ownership and the sense of experiential ownership. The former concerns self-as-object: whether a body part or a full body belongs to me. The latter concerns self-as-subject: whether I represent myself as the unique subject of experience. A key point is that misrepresentation can occur not only in the sense of body ownership but also in the sense of experiential ownership. Then I examine the most relevant neuroscientific accounts of the sense of self-as-subject, including Damasio’s account of the core-self, Panksepp’s affective neuroscience, neural synchrony, and the subcortical-cortical midline structures. I argue that none of these successfully explains the neural basis of the sense of self-as-subject. In order to make progress, I suggest, the first step is to look for and then to study the various conditions in which one can pursue the “Wittgenstein Question”.