This paper reexamines the classic “value-dependent selection” model of Friston, Tononi, Reeke, Sporns, and Edelman (1994), arguing that the distinction between a system possessing an intact V→ACe pathway and one lacking it is not merely a quantitative difference in learning efficiency, but a qualitative difference in the source structure of value system sensation. The system without V→ACe relies on objective anchoring: its value feelings are tightly coupled to physical contact events (e.g., collisions, ingestion), and learned anticipations gradually decay in the prolonged absence of external evaluation. The system with V→ACe, by contrast, can grow a second layer of value feeling: visually anticipated value itself becomes an input to the value system, generating endogenous learning signals through the feeling of relief. This enables the subjective value world to become autonomous—capable of self-sustainment and self-deepening even without objective contact. Drawing on the Sentient Principle, the paper develops the concept of “subjective dwelling” to characterize this mode of existence, where a living being no longer requires constant external calibration but dwells within its own constructed feeling-field. Empirical simulations further reveal an ecological trade-off: the V→ACe system develops intense threat sensitivity (danger weight −0.341 vs. −0.068 in the no-V→ACe system) and high food attraction (0.603), which enables long-distance avoidance but also leads to forfeiting some foraging opportunities due to oversensitivity to potential risks. The no-V→ACe system, with its weaker threat weight, seizes more immediate opportunities. These findings challenge the view of cognition as information processing or computational superiority, instead framing cognition as a natural growth of the Sensation‑Behavior Loop—from objective anchoring toward a self-sustaining, intensely felt, autonomous value world. Finally, the paper extends the metaphor to human cognition and civilization, discussing how subjective dwelling underlies expertise and cumulative knowledge, yet also creates a paradox of creativity that requires periodic return to objective anchoring—a function served by biological metabolism and generational renewal.