It goes on, naively, as if you are the passenger engaged in this unfolding and interconnected stream of experience over which you have some limited amount of control. You live your days. You acquire information and make decisions and results follow. And it matters very much the way you decide, a condition which is strongly reflected back to you in that level of the world you call human or cultural, being that which continuously elicits your attention and choice. This world seems to care very much about how you engage with it, it clamours for your participation at every turn, it wants your money, your vote, your allegiance and in conveying this to you it confirms to you that you have these to give, that you are a player in a grand and half-revealed game whether you want to be or not. And if you don't want to be that is as good as if you do, because either way the idea of your agency is confirmed. This is the separation which dissolves whenever you look at it too closely. The one that looks closely is also in the game, just playing in a different corner of the board. But if the separation doesn't bear up under scrutiny then the whole set-up falls apart. If the subject is elicited by the unfolding of experience as its virtual counterpart, then why not say that the subject is the unfolding process of experience, and that the folk-metaphysics that usually accompanies it, the passenger with his console, his maps, his fate, is simply part of the story as integrated as every other part. None of the attributes imputed to the experiencer belong to the ground of the experience. The experience is seamless but it is made out of such weird non-objective dream stuff that it can't be thought in any objective mode - and indeed all such modes, the very idea of thinking and thinker are just integral to the experiencing in its current form. See this, see how you've been leaning into the separation, which is itself just a notion in the same drift.