One resolution to the numerous paradoxes of appearance is to conclude that the universe we find ourselves in is a simulation. It is debatable whether this solves anything at all, or just pushes the problem further out of reach, but if it were the case it is not unreasonable to assume that we might have been designed to discover that fact, and to follow where this discovery might lead. Say this simulation is in a vast computer set up by a superior being in order to enjoy the spectacle of its unfolding, of the unfolding of the abstract premises applied in the building of it. In that case there must be ports of some kind through which this being can access and experience their virtual world. The obvious candidate is the subjective life of individuals. Does it make sense to ask whether a particular such port is in use at any given time, like right now? In other words, given that subjective life apparently has its own internal justification, its own internal self, the one for whom it all is all, and given that on this assumption this internal self does not, cannot, actually serve this function - being only a sort of place-holder, something like a programmed parser that ensures that memories are stored correctly in relation to the multiple lines of narrative that intersect here, that everything is always in readiness for the real subject, the creator or commissioner of the simulation - is there a difference in experience between its being 'enjoyed' by a virtual self and a real self? Is the virtual self aware in a moment to moment way of its incompleteness, aware that it needs the plenary subjectivity of that other to complete its task? This thought experiment points to a radical difference between two notions of the self, the first being as operative core of the functioning subject in its world, and the second being the final guarantor, the underwriter, of the reality of personal, or first-person, experience.