Self-Identity

[Wizard22]

AND here IS the IRREFUTABLE PROOF that I did NOT SAY, 'differences are illusory'. Like "wizard22" Falsely BELIEVES and, LAUGHINGLY, even CLAIMS I did.

I will AGAIN now NOTE that I had ALREADY EXPLAINED, to you, by ALSO SAYING and STATING, 'I SPOKE and WROTE CLUMSILY, which is WHY I can SEE WHERE you might have thought, or believed, there was some sort of CONTRADICTION there.'

How much MORE CLEARER could I have made 'things' for you here "wizard22"? YET you STILL COME back with YOUR OWN DISTORTED VIEWS, BELIEFS. and CLAIMS, which have ALREADY BEEN PROVED False AND Wrong. AND, besides this Fact, you have NOT even YET HIGHLIGHTED WHERE ANY, supposed and alleged, CONTRADICTIONS IS here.

I STILL STAND BY absolutely EVERY WORD I SAID and WROTE, although CLUMSILY. Do you STILL STAND BY your CLAIM that there is some PROPOSED CONTRADICTION in MY ACTUAL WORDS?

If yes, then WHERE and HOW, EXACTLY?

We now AGAIN WAIT.

You said something foolish. You were corrected (by myself). Accept it and move on.

[Wizard22]

By age, a child is not totally free of egoism, by age 7 or so, the primal tribalism instinct takes over to facilitate to extend the survival of the tribe.

It is unlikely individuals at present will have species consciousness or species identity but nevertheless all humans are programmed [as inferred] fundamentally to ensure the preservation of the human species.
However with self-awareness and personal identity of individuals, some could do otherwise [i.e. exterminate the human species] in reality.

This is why the program to expedite moral progress within humanity is critical.

Age 7 is also when Literacy becomes prominent. Human children, those especially gifted in the ability to read, write, and do arithmetic, become proficient on a rudimentary level. However, there is an IQ disparity here, a normative distribution that rules most children at an 'average' level of intellect and capacity for abstract thought. Thus, some individuals and groups of people (societies) can be 'educated' whereas others cannot to the same degree.

Thus there is a distribution of moral understanding as well...and a distribution of sophistication of Self-Identity.

[bahman]

The mind is an unchangeable substance with the ability to experience and cause Quadia.

Come on now, bahman, what the heck is "Quadia"?

You have used that same word twice now in two separate posts.

If you mean "Qualia," then please pay attention to what you write. Some of your comments (such as the next one below) are already misleading to begin with without you adding misspelled words.

Quadia are substances that are the subject of experience and causation. Quadia have properties so-called Qualia.

"I" which is different from Self or the mind is simply my body.

The "I" is most definitely not the body. No, the "I" is the self-aware "agent" (or "I Am-ness") that sits at the throne of consciousness within the mind.

The "I" is the subjectively based owner and controller of its own personal matrix of mental imaging energy that it can wield and shape into absolutely anything it wishes (any object or circumstances imaginable) within the mind's spatial arena.

The "I" is the locus of the soul, with the soul being that which will survive the death of the body and live eternally in a higher context of reality.
_______

Well, you can add soul to "I" as well.

[bahman]

We know in the sense that we experience it.

Yes.

It can be simplified. You respond to people calling out your name, or in this forum, your Username. How does your brain do this?

As I said no one knows.

And as I said this CLAIM is False AND Wrong.

All we know is that neurons in the brain keep firing. How that firing can possibly lead to all sorts of phenomena in humans nobody knows.

This CLAIM here is ALSO False AND Wrong.

Ok, so enlighten us by telling how all these phenomena, like recalling, thought, sense of self, etc. are produced as the result of neurons firing. Please.

[bahman]

I ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED HOW young children begin to develop a 'sense of self'. So, YOUR CLAIM here IS False, Wrong, and Incorrect.

So, you don't know what you are talking about.

LOL

you sound like one of those who BELIEVED that the sun revolves around the earth and when one is INFORMING you that they KNOW that ACTUALLY the earth revolves around the sun, and that they had ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED this to you, you would, VERY LAUGHABLY, come back with, 'So, you don't know what you are talking about'.

These people REALLY could NOT see just how much their OWN made up BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS were affecting their ABILITY to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' CLEARLY and Accurately.

These people were so DISTORTED, BLIND, and CLOSED that they ACTUALLY BELIEVED that what they were currently ASSUMING and BELIEVING was true was ACTUALLY TRUE.

Ok, so please tell use how neuron firing can leads to the sense of self.

Just two sentences ago you SAID and WROTE, 'Self IS 'the mind', but now you SAY and WRITE, 'I/Self IS a body, interacting with 'the mind'.

Will you EXPLAIN WHY this apparent CONTRADICTION exists here?

If you ANSWER this QUESTION, then 'that' MIGHT HELP in EXPLAINING ALL of your VERY MANY CONTRADICTIONS here in this forum.

The mind is an unchangeable substance with the ability to experience and cause Quadia.

Are you able to produce A PHOTO, or at least A DESCRIPTION, of what this 'substance' supposedly IS, which is supposedly 'unchangeable' and what makes up this 'mind' 'thing', which you CLAIM here exists?

A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties. Body in another hand is a substance which is subject to change.

"I" which is different from Self or the mind is simply my body.

SO, HOW, EXACTLY, is 'I' supposedly DIFFERENT from 'Self'?

HOW can 'I' be a physical human body? And, HOW could 'I', which you CLAIM here is simply 'MY body', if 'I' is NOT the one the 'my' word refers to, EXACTLY?

WHO and/or WHAT is the 'one' that the 'my' word REFERS TO, EXACTLY? you KNOW the one that you that you are here SAYING is the one that possesses or owns 'the body', which you ALSO CLAIM IS 'I', and therefore 'I' AM.

Okay. But the thinking within that body can be Wrong, right?

Yes.

GREAT. Let us REMEMBER 'this'.

Yes.

[Age]

AND here IS the IRREFUTABLE PROOF that I did NOT SAY, 'differences are illusory'. Like "wizard22" Falsely BELIEVES and, LAUGHINGLY, even CLAIMS I did.

I will AGAIN now NOTE that I had ALREADY EXPLAINED, to you, by ALSO SAYING and STATING, 'I SPOKE and WROTE CLUMSILY, which is WHY I can SEE WHERE you might have thought, or believed, there was some sort of CONTRADICTION there.'

How much MORE CLEARER could I have made 'things' for you here "wizard22"? YET you STILL COME back with YOUR OWN DISTORTED VIEWS, BELIEFS. and CLAIMS, which have ALREADY BEEN PROVED False AND Wrong. AND, besides this Fact, you have NOT even YET HIGHLIGHTED WHERE ANY, supposed and alleged, CONTRADICTIONS IS here.

I STILL STAND BY absolutely EVERY WORD I SAID and WROTE, although CLUMSILY. Do you STILL STAND BY your CLAIM that there is some PROPOSED CONTRADICTION in MY ACTUAL WORDS?

If yes, then WHERE and HOW, EXACTLY?

We now AGAIN WAIT.

You said something foolish. You were corrected (by myself). Accept it and move on.

LOL
LOL
LOL

What ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE and HAPPENED here is WELL DOCUMENTED for ANY and ALL to SEE and BEAR WITNESS TO.

So, WHO is the ACTUAL FOOL here is VERY OBVIOUS. you SAID and CLAIMED 'things' here, WHICH I HAVE ALREADY PROVED IRREFUTABLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

WHILE you are STILL STUCK on even being ABLE TO just COPY and PASTE MY ACTUALLY CLEARLY WRITTEN DOWN WORDS Accurately. Let alone 'correcting' ANY 'thing' here.

[Age]

By age, a child is not totally free of egoism, by age 7 or so, the primal tribalism instinct takes over to facilitate to extend the survival of the tribe.

It is unlikely individuals at present will have species consciousness or species identity but nevertheless all humans are programmed [as inferred] fundamentally to ensure the preservation of the human species.
However with self-awareness and personal identity of individuals, some could do otherwise [i.e. exterminate the human species] in reality.

This is why the program to expedite moral progress within humanity is critical.

Age 7 is also when Literacy becomes prominent. Human children, those especially gifted in the ability to read, write, and do arithmetic, become proficient on a rudimentary level. However, there is an IQ disparity here, a normative distribution that rules most children at an 'average' level of intellect and capacity for abstract thought. Thus, some individuals and groups of people (societies) can be 'educated' whereas others cannot to the same degree.

Thus there is a distribution of moral understanding as well...and a distribution of sophistication of Self-Identity.

LOL This one does NOT just ACTUALLY BELIEVE that 'it' is MORE INTELLIGENT, and MORE SUPERIOR, than "others" are but even BELIEVES that 'it' BELONGS in A 'class' or A 'group', which is ALSO MORE INTELLIGENT, and MORE SUPERIOR, than OTHER 'classes' or 'groups'.

This one VERY LITTLE human being is MORE MENTALLY DISTORTED than I FIRST RECOGNIZED, and THOUGHT.

[Age]

Yes.


As I said no one knows.

And as I said this CLAIM is False AND Wrong.

All we know is that neurons in the brain keep firing. How that firing can possibly lead to all sorts of phenomena in humans nobody knows.

This CLAIM here is ALSO False AND Wrong.

Ok, so enlighten us by telling how all these phenomena, like recalling, thought, sense of self, etc. are produced as the result of neurons firing. Please.

WHY do 'neurons' so-called 'firing' HAVE TO BE the ONLY WAY to PRODUCE 'thinking', and 'thought', itself? which is WHERE MOST 'phenomena' LAYS, and RESTS?

What ACTUAL PROOF IS THERE that it IS the so-called 'firing of neurons', which PRODUCES 'thought', itself?

Could it be the case that, ACTUALLY, WHEN 'thought/s' are occurring, THEN, 'this action' PRODUCES 'neurons' TO so-call 'fire', which could be 'the reaction'?

Or, has this been RULED OUT ABSOLUTELY, and IRREFUTABLY?

Also, IF 'phenomena' MEANS, or REFERS TO, 'an observable event', then HOW and WHERE are the events of 'recalling', 'thought', and/or 'sense of self' 'observed' to be HAPPENING, EXACTLY?

Now, if you were NOT SO PARTICULAR in regards to what YOU ALREADY BELIEVE TO BE TRUE HAPPENS here QUESTIONING, then I COULD ENLIGHTEN you to some MORE and NEWER 'things'.

BUT, because you are ALREADY HOLDING A PRECONCEIVED ASSUMPTION and BELIEF of what ACTUALLY ALREADY HAPPENS, then ENLIGHTENING you, and those LIKE 'you', TAKES SO MUCH LONGER.

[Age]

So, you don't know what you are talking about.

LOL

you sound like one of those who BELIEVED that the sun revolves around the earth and when one is INFORMING you that they KNOW that ACTUALLY the earth revolves around the sun, and that they had ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED this to you, you would, VERY LAUGHABLY, come back with, 'So, you don't know what you are talking about'.

These people REALLY could NOT see just how much their OWN made up BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS were affecting their ABILITY to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' CLEARLY and Accurately.

These people were so DISTORTED, BLIND, and CLOSED that they ACTUALLY BELIEVED that what they were currently ASSUMING and BELIEVING was true was ACTUALLY TRUE.

Ok, so please tell use how neuron firing can leads to the sense of self.

I can tell you HOW so-called 'neuron firing' can lead to the 'sense of self' WITHIN human bodies, but FIRST I would NEED the ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE PROOF that the 'firing of neurons' ACTUALLY LED TO 'the sense of self'.

Do you HAVE 'this PROOF'?

Or, do you just PRESUME that it is this so-called 'neuron firing', which CAUSES or CREATES 'the sense of self'?

The mind is an unchangeable substance with the ability to experience and cause Quadia.

Are you able to produce A PHOTO, or at least A DESCRIPTION, of what this 'substance' supposedly IS, which is supposedly 'unchangeable' and what makes up this 'mind' 'thing', which you CLAIM here exists?

A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties. Body in another hand is a substance which is subject to change.

Do you PURPOSELY try to come across as SO VAGUE and NONCOMPREHENDING of the ACTUAL QUESTION ASKED? Or, do you REALLY STILL NOT YET UNDERSTAND the ACTUAL QUESTION ASKED?

I did NOT ASK you, 'What IS a substance?' Which is WHAT YOUR response here is ANSWERING. I ASKED you, SPECIFICALLY, to PRODUCE SOME 'thing' that SHOWS or DESCRIBES what 'this SUBSTANCE of the mind' IS, EXACTLY, which you CLAIM exists, SOMEWHERE.

Can you SPOT the DIFFERENCE here 'now'?

Could the thinking within that body that some so-called 'mind' 'thingy' is made up of a 'substance' even be wrong?

"I" which is different from Self or the mind is simply my body.

SO, HOW, EXACTLY, is 'I' supposedly DIFFERENT from 'Self'?

HOW can 'I' be a physical human body? And, HOW could 'I', which you CLAIM here is simply 'MY body', if 'I' is NOT the one the 'my' word refers to, EXACTLY?

WHO and/or WHAT is the 'one' that the 'my' word REFERS TO, EXACTLY? you KNOW the one that you that you are here SAYING is the one that possesses or owns 'the body', which you ALSO CLAIM IS 'I', and therefore 'I' AM.

GREAT. Let us REMEMBER 'this'.

Yes.

[bahman]

And as I said this CLAIM is False AND Wrong.



This CLAIM here is ALSO False AND Wrong.

Ok, so enlighten us by telling how all these phenomena, like recalling, thought, sense of self, etc. are produced as the result of neurons firing. Please.

WHY do 'neurons' so-called 'firing' HAVE TO BE the ONLY WAY to PRODUCE 'thinking', and 'thought', itself? which is WHERE MOST 'phenomena' LAYS, and RESTS?

What ACTUAL PROOF IS THERE that it IS the so-called 'firing of neurons', which PRODUCES 'thought', itself?

Could it be the case that, ACTUALLY, WHEN 'thought/s' are occurring, THEN, 'this action' PRODUCES 'neurons' TO so-call 'fire', which could be 'the reaction'?

Or, has this been RULED OUT ABSOLUTELY, and IRREFUTABLY?

Also, IF 'phenomena' MEANS, or REFERS TO, 'an observable event', then HOW and WHERE are the events of 'recalling', 'thought', and/or 'sense of self' 'observed' to be HAPPENING, EXACTLY?

Now, if you were NOT SO PARTICULAR in regards to what YOU ALREADY BELIEVE TO BE TRUE HAPPENS here QUESTIONING, then I COULD ENLIGHTEN you to some MORE and NEWER 'things'.

BUT, because you are ALREADY HOLDING A PRECONCEIVED ASSUMPTION and BELIEF of what ACTUALLY ALREADY HAPPENS, then ENLIGHTENING you, and those LIKE 'you', TAKES SO MUCH LONGER.

We know that a specific area of the brain is for thinking. We know this from several sources, one of them being that people with injury to that area of the brain cannot think. The brain is nothing but a huge set of neurons that each may fire depending on the input signals. So that is it plain and simple. ANd please tell us the truth if you know that the thing is the other way around instead of asking more questions.

[Age]

Ok, so enlighten us by telling how all these phenomena, like recalling, thought, sense of self, etc. are produced as the result of neurons firing. Please.

WHY do 'neurons' so-called 'firing' HAVE TO BE the ONLY WAY to PRODUCE 'thinking', and 'thought', itself? which is WHERE MOST 'phenomena' LAYS, and RESTS?

What ACTUAL PROOF IS THERE that it IS the so-called 'firing of neurons', which PRODUCES 'thought', itself?

Could it be the case that, ACTUALLY, WHEN 'thought/s' are occurring, THEN, 'this action' PRODUCES 'neurons' TO so-call 'fire', which could be 'the reaction'?

Or, has this been RULED OUT ABSOLUTELY, and IRREFUTABLY?

Also, IF 'phenomena' MEANS, or REFERS TO, 'an observable event', then HOW and WHERE are the events of 'recalling', 'thought', and/or 'sense of self' 'observed' to be HAPPENING, EXACTLY?

Now, if you were NOT SO PARTICULAR in regards to what YOU ALREADY BELIEVE TO BE TRUE HAPPENS here QUESTIONING, then I COULD ENLIGHTEN you to some MORE and NEWER 'things'.

BUT, because you are ALREADY HOLDING A PRECONCEIVED ASSUMPTION and BELIEF of what ACTUALLY ALREADY HAPPENS, then ENLIGHTENING you, and those LIKE 'you', TAKES SO MUCH LONGER.

We know that a specific area of the brain is for thinking. We know this from several sources, one of them being that people with injury to that area of the brain cannot think.

What do you mean by, 'cannot think'?

What 'specific area' of the brain is 'that', specifically, or EXACTLY?

What are the 'other sources', besides the 'with injury to that area of the brain' one?

The brain is nothing but a huge set of neurons that each may fire depending on the input signals.

Can 'input signals' come from 'thoughts' or 'thinking'?

So that is it plain and simple.

So, 'what' is 'it', EXACTLY?

What are 'you' 'thinking' 'you' have ACTUALLY explained here now, EXACTLY?

ANd please tell us the truth if you know that the thing is the other way around instead of asking more questions.

'you' are the one CLAIMING 'you' KNOW the truth of 'things' here. So, I just ASK 'those' who ARE SO SURE OF "themselves" CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

[seeds]

The mind is an unchangeable substance with the ability to experience and cause Quadia.

Come on now, bahman, what the heck is "Quadia"?

You have used that same word twice now in two separate posts.

If you mean "Qualia," then please pay attention to what you write. Some of your comments (such as the next one below) are already misleading to begin with without you adding misspelled words.

Quadia are substances that are the subject of experience and causation. Quadia have properties so-called Qualia.

Ah, so you're taking the Trumpian approach, which is to double-down on horse crap statements in the hope that everyone else is just too dumb to notice.

Good grief, bahman, don't you even bother to Google the definition of a word in question before you defend your usage of it?

I don't know why I am bothering with this,...

(perhaps it's because we've argued over your erroneous interpretation and usage of the word "qualia" before)

...anyway, if you Google the word "Quadia," you'll find out that it is the name of an investment company, and that's pretty much it.

In an extended search there is absolutely no trace of the word "Quadia" being related to the word "qualia."

In fact, if you Google "qualia," you will come across a link titled:

"Qualia Words - 152 Words Related to Qualia" - (here: https://relatedwords.io/qualia#:~:text= ... w%20is%20a )
...and nowhere does it include or mention the word "Quadia."

So, either prove me wrong (which is always a possibility) by providing a link that shows the two words are synonymous or related in some way,...

...or admit your error.

"I" which is different from Self or the mind is simply my body.

The "I" is most definitely not the body. No, the "I" is the self-aware "agent" (or "I Am-ness") that sits at the throne of consciousness within the mind.

The "I" is the subjectively based owner and controller of its own personal matrix of mental imaging energy that it can wield and shape into absolutely anything it wishes (any object or circumstances imaginable) within the mind's spatial arena.

The "I" is the locus of the soul, with the soul being that which will survive the death of the body and live eternally in a higher context of reality.
_______

Well, you can add soul to "I" as well.

Done. In which case, can you at least admit that this...

"I" which is different from Self or the mind is simply my body.

...is wrong, and that there is more to the "I" than it just simply being your body?

And lastly (and for the umpteenth time), "qualia" (or "Quadia") is not a "substance."

Furthermore, and I understand that this may be due to the fact that English is not your first language, nevertheless, if qualia were indeed a substance (which, again, it is not), then it would be the "object" of experience, and not the "subject" of experience.
_______

[Skepdick]

In so far as your tiny evolved monkey brain can't grasp all of reality at once (e.g you are incapable of omniscience) you are necessarily speaking about an abstraction.

So reality is an abstraction unless you're omniscient...wow, that's bonkers.

Thank you for proving me right yet again Skep. When are you going to win an argument against me? I'm waiiiiiting!

From wher I am looking you do win all arguments. That's what makes you a loser.

[bahman]

WHY do 'neurons' so-called 'firing' HAVE TO BE the ONLY WAY to PRODUCE 'thinking', and 'thought', itself? which is WHERE MOST 'phenomena' LAYS, and RESTS?

What ACTUAL PROOF IS THERE that it IS the so-called 'firing of neurons', which PRODUCES 'thought', itself?

Could it be the case that, ACTUALLY, WHEN 'thought/s' are occurring, THEN, 'this action' PRODUCES 'neurons' TO so-call 'fire', which could be 'the reaction'?

Or, has this been RULED OUT ABSOLUTELY, and IRREFUTABLY?

Also, IF 'phenomena' MEANS, or REFERS TO, 'an observable event', then HOW and WHERE are the events of 'recalling', 'thought', and/or 'sense of self' 'observed' to be HAPPENING, EXACTLY?

Now, if you were NOT SO PARTICULAR in regards to what YOU ALREADY BELIEVE TO BE TRUE HAPPENS here QUESTIONING, then I COULD ENLIGHTEN you to some MORE and NEWER 'things'.

BUT, because you are ALREADY HOLDING A PRECONCEIVED ASSUMPTION and BELIEF of what ACTUALLY ALREADY HAPPENS, then ENLIGHTENING you, and those LIKE 'you', TAKES SO MUCH LONGER.

We know that a specific area of the brain is for thinking. We know this from several sources, one of them being that people with injury to that area of the brain cannot think.

What do you mean by, 'cannot think'?

Why don't you google? Here you can find one source which I found for you: https://msktc.org/tbi/factsheets/cognit ... ain-injury

What 'specific area' of the brain is 'that', specifically, or EXACTLY?

Here you go: https://blog.mindvalley.com/which-part- ... s-thinking

What are the 'other sources', besides the 'with injury to that area of the brain' one?

fMRI.

The brain is nothing but a huge set of neurons that each may fire depending on the input signals.

Can 'input signals' come from 'thoughts' or 'thinking'?

No. The signals comes from other neurons.

So that is it plain and simple.

So, 'what' is 'it', EXACTLY?

What are 'you' 'thinking' 'you' have ACTUALLY explained here now, EXACTLY?

ANd please tell us the truth if you know that the thing is the other way around instead of asking more questions.

'you' are the one CLAIMING 'you' KNOW the truth of 'things' here. So, I just ASK 'those' who ARE SO SURE OF "themselves" CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

So you don't know the truth about sense of self?

[bahman]

Come on now, bahman, what the heck is "Quadia"?

You have used that same word twice now in two separate posts.

If you mean "Qualia," then please pay attention to what you write. Some of your comments (such as the next one below) are already misleading to begin with without you adding misspelled words.

Quadia are substances that are the subject of experience and causation. Quadia have properties so-called Qualia.

Ah, so you're taking the Trumpian approach, which is to double-down on horse crap statements in the hope that everyone else is just too dumb to notice.

Good grief, bahman, don't you even bother to Google the definition of a word in question before you defend your usage of it?

I don't know why I am bothering with this,...

(perhaps it's because we've argued over your erroneous interpretation and usage of the word "qualia" before)

...anyway, if you Google the word "Quadia," you'll find out that it is the name of an investment company, and that's pretty much it.

In an extended search there is absolutely no trace of the word "Quadia" being related to the word "qualia."

In fact, if you Google "qualia," you will come across a link titled:

"Qualia Words - 152 Words Related to Qualia" - (here: https://relatedwords.io/qualia#:~:text= ... w%20is%20a )
...and nowhere does it include or mention the word "Quadia."

So, either prove me wrong (which is always a possibility) by providing a link that shows the two words are synonymous or related in some way,...

...or admit your error.

Skpdic proposed this link and I liked it. https://twitter.com/keithfrankish/statu ... JOMt6KpZwg

The "I" is most definitely not the body. No, the "I" is the self-aware "agent" (or "I Am-ness") that sits at the throne of consciousness within the mind.

The "I" is the subjectively based owner and controller of its own personal matrix of mental imaging energy that it can wield and shape into absolutely anything it wishes (any object or circumstances imaginable) within the mind's spatial arena.

The "I" is the locus of the soul, with the soul being that which will survive the death of the body and live eternally in a higher context of reality.
_______

Well, you can add soul to "I" as well.

Done. In which case, can you at least admit that this...

Yeah, you can add the soul if there is any.

"I" which is different from Self or the mind is simply my body.

...is wrong, and that there is more to the "I" than it just simply being your body?

And lastly (and for the umpteenth time), "qualia" (or "Quadia") is not a "substance."

Furthermore, and I understand that this may be due to the fact that English is not your first language, nevertheless, if qualia were indeed a substance (which, again, it is not), then it would be the "object" of experience, and not the "subject" of experience.
_______

Ok, thanks for the correction (object instead of subject).