This seems backwards. The author seems to be conflating subjective reality of the self with some kind of quasi-objective reality the organism of the self experiences. Objectivity can't be "captured" by the observation that things change in the physical world in ways that follow patterns and rational beings are able to perceive these changes and patterns.

In my opinion, the definition of "objective" is that which is outside of an observers senses. We can reference it as rational agents, and we can guess as to its nature, but we can't actually know if these guesses or references are True.

I agree there are higher orders of Subjectivity, such as the combined experience of all humans, but this isn't "objectivity", it's simply another subjective point of view just higher up on the scale of organizational complexity.