This article develops a hypothesis on the subject as a projection in informaciology, indicating its role in information processing.
This article develops the hypothesis that the phenomenon of the subject – the perceiving, interpreting, thinking, and feeling "I" – is not a fundamental ontological entity but rather a simplified projection of a more complex "thinking and feeling entity" onto a set of informational phenomena accessible within a chosen level of description G. This hypothesis extends the updated version of informaciology, where information was defined as a projection and the subject as a necessary condition for its existence. However, the question of what lies at the basis of the subject itself remained open. The proposed answer: the subject is a projection. The rationale is built on an analysis of the paradoxes of the naive subject (self-reference, boundary problems, the illusion of continuity, the "hard problem of consciousness"), as well as on the evolutionary function of the subject as a simplification necessary for effective information processing. The concept of the "thinking and feeling entity" is introduced – a more fundamental level of reality existing in higher dimensions or at a deeper level of the hierarchy of forms (F4–F7). The projection mechanism is described through the Generalised Holographic Principle and the G principle, which determine what type of subject is activated at a given level of description. Types of subject-projections in the hierarchy of forms (F1–F7) are examined, from physical systems to hypothetical higher forms of intelligence. Methodological, epistemological, and ethical consequences of the hypothesis are discussed. A comparison with similar approaches in contemporary literature (Generative Projection Framework, holographic divergence, projection-as-experience) shows that the proposed concept is distinguished by its systematicity, connection with physics, clear distinction between subject and entity, hierarchy of subjects, and operationality. The article concludes with open questions and an invitation to interdisciplinary dialogue.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alexander Yourievitch Kotelnikov (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: