Does the sense of self-as-subject conform to the immunity principle (IEM)? When I experience a phenomenal state, does it guarantee that based on first-personal access I cannot be wrong about whether it is me who experiences it? In “Self-as-Subject and Experiential Ownership”, I elucidated the sense of self-as-subject in terms of the sense of experiential ownership, and argued that the sense of experiential ownership does not enjoy IEM. Haug and Jung raise very substantial issues against my overall position.[1] Here, I respond to Haug and Jung’s criticisms and intend to show how an interdisciplinary approach may enhance our understanding of the sense of self-as-subject.
Let me begin by suggesting that the following two issues regarding IEM are different: (1) Does IEM correctly specify how we use the first-person pronoun “I”? (2) Does IEM really mark the line between the sense of self-as-object and the sense of self-as-subject? While (1) concerns a linguistic rule, (2) is about the nature of self-consciousness. The issue addressed in my paper was (2). I investigated the best way to understand the distinction between the sense of self-as-object and the sense of self-as-subject. I argued that IEM, or at least some versions of it, fails to draw the distinction between the two types of self-consciousness. I proposed an alternative account, according to which the distinction can be better articulated in terms of the sense of body ownership and the sense of experiential ownership.