Saturday, August 23, 2025

Gaze dualism and omnisubjectivity

I have toyed with a pair of theories.

The first is what I call gaze-dualism. On gaze-dualism, our sensory conscious experiences are constituted by a non-physical object—the soul—“gazing” at certain brain states. When the sensory data changes—say, when a sound goes from middle A to middle C—the subjective experience changes. But this change need not involve an intrinsic change in the soul. The change in experience is grounded in a change in the gazed-at brain state, a brain state that reflects the sensory data, rather than by a change in the gazing soul. (This is perhaps very close to Aquinas’ view of sensory consciousness, except that for Aquinas the gazed-at states are states of sense organs rather than of the brain.)

The second is an application of this to God’s knowledge of contingent reality. God knows contingent reality by gazing at it the way that our soul gazes at the brain states that reflect sensory data. God does not intrinsically change when contingent reality changes—the change is all on the side of the gazed-at contingent reality.

I just realized that this story makes a bit of progress on what Linda Zagzebski calls “omnisubjectivity”—God’s knowledge of all subjective states. My experience of hearing a middle C comes from my gazing at a brain state BC of my auditory center produced by nerve impulses caused by my tympanic membrane vibrating at 256 Hz. My gaze is limited to certain aspects of my auditory center—my gaze tracks whatever features of my auditory center are relevant to the sound, features denoted by BC, but does not track features of my auditory center that are not relevant to the sound (e.g., the temperature of my neurons). God’s gaze is not so limited—God gazes at every aspect of my auditory center. But in doing so, he also gazes at BC. This does not mean that God has the same experience as I do. My experience is partly constituted by my soul’s gaze at BC. God’s experience is partly constituted by God’s gaze at BC. Since my soul is very different from God, it is not surprising that the experiences are different. However, God has full knowledge of the constituents of my experience: myself, my gaze, and BC, and God’s knowledge of these is basically experiential—it is constituted by God’s gazing at me, my gaze, and BC. And God also gazes at their totality. This is, I think, all we need to be able to say that God knows my sensory consciousness states.

My non-sensory experiences may also be constituted by my soul’s gazing at a state of my brain, but they may also be constituted by the soul’s gazing at a state of the soul. And God gazes at the constituents and whole again.

1 comment:

Mtwewy said...

I have thought of "gaze-dualism" before, but (especially how you described it) isn't it a form of indirect realism about perception? As if our consciousness (the gaze) is only directly aware of our brain states, which change, and only indirectly aware of the external objects which alter and modify our brain states. But Aquinas's model is direct realist - we perceive the things themselves, directly. So gaze dualism doesn't sound like Aquinas's directly realist model.
Thoughts?