Biology Assignment Week Two

My thought on Evo-Devo

Once we realize that evolution is not like a ladder (lower to higher) but a tree we would understand that there is no reason to assume humans are the final product of evolution.  Since we are not the highest species, evolution will not stop working because we are here.

How does Darwinism matter to me?

I think Darwinism brings forward, among other things, the fundamental issues of morality and law.  Once we start to explain human behaviors in terms of Darwinism as opposed to religion we lose any grounding for morality and law.  The core of the issue however is really about our mistaken common sense view of the world that is called realism.  Darwinism, as interpreted by most people, assumes this mistaken world view.  This is one issue that I am very interested in and have outlined my ideas in my presentation for this class.

Biology Assignment Week One

The most interesting idea that I learn today about evolution is that the theory does not imply that we humans are higher on the evolutionary ladder than other living organisms such as viruses.  This is because evolution is really not about which species is more advanced than the other but how each is related to others in a family tree of different organisms from time past.

Biology Summer 2014 Presentation

Fish is happy and we know it

A scientific interpretation of Zhuangzi’s insight.

Introduction

Zhuangzi is after Laozi the second most famous Taoist philosopher in ancient China and he is known for telling interesting stories with deep insights on nature and life.  One of them is as follows:

Zhuangzi and Huizi’s Dialogue 

One day Zhuangzi and his good friend Huizi were on a bridge crossing a river.  Seeing that there are fish swimming in the river Zhuangzi commented "Look how happy the fish are just swimming around in the river."  Huizi then replied "Since you are not a fish, how do you know the fish are happy?”  Zhuangzi replied "And you are not me. How do you know I don't know the fish are happy?"  Huizi then argued, "If I, not being you, cannot know what you know, it follows that since you are not a fish,  you cannot possibly know whether they are happy or not”  Zhuangzi then said: "Look, when you asked me how I knew the fish were happy, you already knew that I knew the fish were happy.  And I know it from my feelings standing on this bridge."

Growing up in Taiwan

When I grew up in Taiwan all elementary school students had to read this short dialogue as part of our training in Chinese classics (kind of like American students reading Shakespeare).  But no one including the teachers really understand the last sentence.  Everyone assumes Zhuangzi won the debate with that sentence since he is the famous Taoist thinker and the author of the dialogue but no one really knows why or how he won the arguments nor the deep insight that comes with it.  My presentation today is to explain why Zhuangzi won the argument, what his deep insight really is and how his insight can improve seemingly diverse aspects of our lives and our health, alleviate our fear of death and even resolve deep issues in logic and mathematics. (Since the logical and mathematical issues are more technical I will skip them for now but will post it on my blog if you are interested)  

Two different world views

To put it simply Zhuangzi and Huizi have two very different views of the world.  Huizi’s view of the world seems scientific and reasonable in the beginning but in fact it is not only unscientific but it is filled with logical paradoxes that create mental confusions and has an adverse effect on our psychological and even physical health.  Zhuangzi’s great insight is that he realizes Huizi’s world view is scientifically mistaken and to be freed from this world view is very beneficial to us. 

Realism and common sense view of the world

Lets get into the details.  Huizi’s argument is based on his view of the world that is called realism in modern philosophy.  Realism is basically our common sense view of the world. Our common sense tells us that our world consists of independently existing objects that spread out in space and time. Among them there are also individual subject, such as humans and animals, that can experience objects through their senses and act freely in various ways. (#1 draw picture of mountain river and bridge and two people on the bridge and a fish in the river and write object next to mountain river bridge, subject/object next to people and fish) 

In our case the mountain, river and the bridge that Zhuangzi and Huizi walked on would be objects and Zhuangzi, Huizi and Fish would be both objects and subjects.

Locke and problem of knowledge

Even though it seems self evident, realism is in fact not scientific and is the source of many of our deepest scientific, logical and even ethical problems. John Locke, a famous enlightenment thinker, developed a model of how human acquires knowledge basing on realism which we still use today. He thought very simply that objects outside us cause sensation in us and allow us to have knowledge. (#2 add arrow and three bubbles to picture, add mountain/river/bridge/fish/people in one bubble) 

However if all we get is sensation from our senses then we never have direct access to the objects of experience in themselves. One question Locke faced, and has never been resolved even in modern time, was how do we know the images in our mind reflect the reality that is independent of our mind? (#3 draw equal sign between bubble and big picture and then question mark) 

Kant 

The problem of our common sense view of the world goes even deeper than this.  Emmanuel Kant, a german philosopher, realized that since our knowledge of objects is based on our sensations of objects, what we really know is only the interaction between objects and subject. What the objects in themselves really are like without the presence of subjects can never be known.  For example our knowledge of a mountain or a river is that it has certain qualities such as size, weight, color, texture, smell and sound.  However these qualities are present because we have these particular sensory apparatus such as eyes to see the size and color, nose to smell the oder, and ears to hear the sound.  Objects in themselves, without any interactions with subjects must be radically, and categorically different from our experience of them since whatever they are they should not have these subject dependent qualities such as size, weight, color, texture, smell and sound.  In fact we cannot even imagine what they must be because all the qualities of the object we ever known and ever experienced are all subjective and sensory dependent.  Just try to imagine a mountain, river or bridge that has none of these subjective sensory dependent qualities and you will start to understand what Kant is trying to tell us.

Descartes

Since following realism we can never have access to physical objects independent of us but only our subjective experience of them the question for the modern scientists and philosophers becomes how and where can we find an undoubtable scientific foundation for our knowledge.  Rene Descartes was very interested in this question. Since the problem that comes from   realism is that we can never have direct access to physical objects independent of us but only our subjective experience of them Descartes suggested that the only thing we know  for sure is our individual subjective experiences. (#4 cross out mountain, river, bridge and object of people and fish)  

As a result the undoubtable foundation that Descartes found is summarized in his famous statement “I think therefore I am.”  Which really means the only thing that I can be sure of and can claim to know for certain is my subjective experience which includes various sensations, emotions and thoughts.

Realism and its strange conclusions

Starting with the common sense belief of the world that objects exist independently in space and time we come to the strange conclusion that we have no idea of the objective world out there but only our subjective experience of them.   Further more as between different people or animals since they are also objects, just like mountains rivers and bridges, we also do not know their objective existence in themselves but only our subjective experience of them. (#5 draw connection between two persons and  cross this connection out)   

In addition since what each one of us can really know is our own subjective experience we are also separated from other people and animals’ subjective experience.  This means just like we cannot have access to the objects in themselves we also cannot have access to other people or animals’s subjective experience in themselves. (#6 draw connection between three bubbles and cross these connections out) 

Back to Zhuangzi one

Now we can better understand the debate between Zhuangzi and Huizi.  If we start from our common sense view of the world or realism there is no way that Zhuangzi can know fish’s subjective experience or in this case whether fish is happy or not; since all Zhuangzi has access to is his own subjective experience. (# point to Zhuangzi)  However if that is the case then Huizi also does not have access to Zhuangzi’s subjective experience but only his own. (# point to Huizi)  And If that is the case then the very communication between these two friends is not even possible. (# point to the disconnection between two bubbles)  It seems then that Huizi has the better argument since there is no way Zhuangzi can know if the fish is happy or not. (# point to the disconnection between bubbles of Fish and Zhuangzi)  But interestingly by his very act of questioning Zhuangzi or even talking to Zhuangzi in the first place Huizi made the mistake of presupposing that communication between two subjects is possible.  In other words Huizi’s argument is right but by arguing with or even just talking to Zhuangzi he is making the very mistake he accuses Zhuangzi of.

Realism correct?

However the more important question is--is realism right? And  what is the meaning of Zhuangzi’s last sentence--that he knows the fish is happy by experiencing it on the bridge?

What is science?

Science and scientific knowledge is ultimately about statements or claims that can be supported by experience or empirical evidence.  This means if any claim or statement is to be scientific it needs to be backed up by observable empirical evidence.  Using this standard we discovered that our common sense idea that objects exist independently in space and time cannot be supported by empirical evidence. 

Can subject be experienced?

But how about our common sense idea that there are individual subjects that can experience objects and act and react when need to?  Or to frame the same question in Descartes' terms, is there an I or self that think, sense and experience?  To answer this question scientifically we must ask the same question as we did with the objects. Can we experience ourselves as subject of experience in our daily lives?  If we can experience it then we can say it exists but if we cannot then this claim that the self or I exists, as commonsensical as it seems, is not supported by science.     

Introspection

With some introspection we should discover that what we normally identify ourselves with are in fact just various kinds of sensations, emotions, or thoughts. These sensations, emotions and thoughts can be seen as various inner objects that we experience. (#7 draw happy and sad faces in bubbles) 

But we never experience the individual owner of these inner objects. 

Descarte’s problem and no I

It is because of this very reason that many famous thinkers such as George Lichtenberg, Ernst Mach, and Bertrand Russell have pointed out that if Descartes is to be really strict with his search for an undoubtable truth then he should not have found the “I” in the “I think there for I am” but only the thinking. (#8 cross out subject in people and fish and cross out people and fish) 

If neither independently existing objects nor individual selves exist then what is left of our drawing? As you can see it is experience itself. 

Inseparable experience

Further more if we cannot have direct access to ourselves or the “I” that is supposed to be the individual subjective owner of our various sensations and emotions then we should no longer characterize these experiences as subjective, private, or individual experiences. (#9 cross out the little thinking bubbles)  

In addition, since our experience is no longer individual subjective experiences it is also not multiple and separable  experience but an unindividuated experience. (#10 cross out two big bubbles at random)   

Notice here since the subject is no longer an individual it does not matter which experiences we erase because they are no longer attached to an individual subject.

Lifting the illusion

With the elimination of the I, self, or individual subject, we are finally able to lift the illusion of our common sense view of the world and see the world as it really is.  The objects of our experience are simply just that. They are not objects that have existence independent of our experience of them.  The subject of experience, on the other hand is simply the ability or capability to experience, act or react to experience.  It is not an individual and hence is not separated from the objects of experience.  

Back to Zhuangzi two

This means in our short story here, there is no separation between the fish, Zhuangzi and Huizi since all of them either as objects or subject are part of this inseparable experience.  And this is how Zhuangzi is right in claiming that he can know the fish is happy and he knows it by feeling it right on the bridge.

Subject object relation

This insight of Zhuangzi is in line with the most fundamental ideas of both the Taoist and Buddhist philosophies. For Taoism it is the idea that the ultimate truth and reality is indescribable.  And For Buddhism it is the idea that there is no self and everything is dependent on everything else.   

Relation to TCM and other disciplines 

Furthermore this insight contains one of the most profound principles in traditional Chinese Medicine, the inseparableness of our mental psychological and physical health. And in my opinion, it also has within it the seed to resolve many seemingly unrelated fundamental problems and paradoxes in very diverse fields such as biology, physics, philosophy of science, economics, ethics and even our fear of death.  I would like to elaborate a bit on these issues.     

Describing experience

We have just shown that strictly speaking there is no individual objects and subjects existing in space and time but only an unindividuated experience.  The next question is if this experience is all we have left how do we scientifically and reasonably describe it as a whole and the objects and subject within it?

Indescribable and unreferrable experience

Even though this experience is the most familiar thing to us, it is actually indescribable and even unreferrable. To begin since we cannot say experience is a result of independent objects or individual subjects we cannot characterize it as either objective or subjective. 

All inclusive experience

Furthermore since experience includes everything that we experience it is all inclusive.  Because it is all inclusive experience cannot be described as being certain things or having certain qualities. This might sound weird but to describe something we need to not only know what it is but also what it is not. For example if something is hard it is not soft if it it is white it is not black if it is located in point A it is not located in point B.

All inclusive indescribable

Since experience is all inclusive it contains both soft and hard, white and black, point A and point B. However to contain both qualities means experience is neither just soft nor just hard, neither just white nor just black located at neither just point A nor just point B. As a result there is no set of qualities that is adequate to describe experience. Experience is neither objective nor subjective, inner nor outer. It is neither the present, the future or the past.

All inclusive unreferrable

Even if we try to describe experience as "all inclusive" we need to remember that this description is still inadequate because even our very act of describing experience is also part of experience. This makes experience not only indescribable but also unreferrable.  This is because when we refer to something we assume we are different from that thing that we refer. For example when we say “that is a tree”  we assume we are different from the tree. But when we refer to experience our very action and ourselves are part of experience.

Describing sub-elements of experience

Even though this experience is itself indescribable and unreferrable it can serve as a basis for defining or describing other concepts within experience. For example we can think of object as the content of this experience and subject as the awareness of the content or similarly that which experiences the content. (##1 draw bubble with Tai Chi sign and write subject and object on each side) 

The advantage of thinking object and subject this way is that we only use these concepts to mark certain aspects of this all inclusive and inseparable experience. We are not making any unscientific commitments as to the real and separate existence of either concept beyond experience itself. We are not saying there are actually objects that exist beyond experience nor are we claiming the subject is the “I”, “self” or some entity but only that these two concepts together represent two correlative aspects of experience itself.

Unique qualities of and subject

Defined in this way objects and subjects possess some interesting qualities.  If we are not careful in using them then these concepts will become unscientific and create mental confusions and unsolvable paradoxes.

Object subject inseparable

First, since object and subject are two inseparable halves of  experience one needs the other to make sense.  An object without a  subject does not make sense so is the other way around.  In other words we cannot have something being experienced and yet without the experiencing subject. Nor can we have the pure awareness without any content.

Conceptual separation

Second, even though in reality they are inseparable but conceptually they must be strictly separated.  Object cannot take on the function of subject and vice versa.

The reason is if we were to make either idea (subject or object) to be both the content and the awareness at the same time then there would not be a need for the existence of the other concept since one concept already covers both functions. However since our starting point which is experience itself is already both content and awareness it makes creating a new concept  redundant.  For instance if subject takes on the function of not only the awareness but also the content then there would be no need for the existence of object since its function has been taken over by subject.  However if subject is both experienced and experiencing then it is no longer distinguishable from our starting point which is both experienced and experiencing in one. Thus by assuming both functions subject not only makes object obsolete but it also makes itself obsolete.

Front and back of a car

An everyday example might help to clarify this point. For example if we want to describe a car using two concepts we can think of the car as having a front and back. (###1 draw a car and then  cut it in half write car on top and front and back on each half)  

In reality the car is an inseparable whole with no clear separation of front and back. But once we conceptually define which part of the car is front and which part back, no part of the car can be both front and back otherwise we are double counting. And if we do this they are no longer useful concepts to describe the car.  We might as well go back to the original  more general concept which is car itself. This means whatever concept we use as long as it's a concept that is describing something within experience it cannot contain both the functions of object and subject.  If it does then this concept is destined to be something unscientific and becomes the  source of logical confusion and paradoxes. And yet in real life concepts such as I, self, person and animals contain both objective and subjective functions.

Back to Zhuangzi three and solipsism

Going back to Zhuangzi’s short story.  We can now see more clearly  what went wrong with Huizi's belief.  The problem with Huizi is that he assumed each person and fish is both an object and a subject but as we see now this is not possible.  And by doing this it creates conceptual confusion.  One of these confusions is that it made us believe the person (either Zhuangzi or Huizi) is trapped inside his own subjective experience and is completely separated from the rest of the world (# point to the person and bubble).  Since the only thing that a person can experience is this person’s own subjective experience there is no evidence that the rest of the world even exists. This eventually would lead to the mistaken belief that the only thing is real in this whole universe is yourself which is called solipsism in philosophy.

Foundation of morality

Another closely related problem is that since this person can only feel and be aware of his own pleasure and pain there is no rational reason for this person to care about  anyone else but himself.  In fact, this is the most fundamental problem in ethics which is whether we can  find a rational reason to be ethical or in other words to sacrifice one's own interest to benefit others.  

Ethics is difficult

Why be ethical is a very very difficult question to answer once we rule out all the superficial reasons that are secretly selfish such as gaining social acceptance or even being rewarded in after life such as going to heaven.  This is why Nietzsche, the famous moral philosopher, claimed that “God is dead and we killed him”. 

Nietzsche

Assuming that a person is both an object and subject of experience, Nietzsche could no find any rational reason for any individual to be moral.  And  yet he observed that ethical actions are essential for human societies. Before the prevalence of science human societies had always relied on religion as the fake foundation to encourage people to be nice to each other using the idea of God and reward or punishment in after life.  However in modernity science has taken over the role of religion in explaining how things happen to us. By pushing religion out of human society, science has also inadvertently destroyed the very foundation of morality.  Since we no longer believe in reward and punishment in after life we no longer have any reason to act ethically.  This is why Nietzsche claimed "God is dead and we killed him". Because we destroyed religion through science and as a result loses the only thing that makes us good.

Self interest in academics

Similarly our inability to find rational grounds for ethical actions has allowed various academic disciplines such as economics, business, politics, social sciences (e.g. game theory), and biology (e.g. theory of evolution )to assume self interest as the main if not the only motivating force for human actions.  

Judgmentalness and shamefulness 

In addition to making us feel isolated and selfish, combining the functions of object and subject together in the idea of a person also makes us overly judgmental and ashamed of our natural desires.

This happens because we attribute intelligence, physical appearance,  age, gender, health conditions, family background, social status on the objective side of a person.  And we attribute  personality (e.g. lazy vs hard working), emotions, thoughts and action to the subjective side.   In addition, we assume that the objective qualities just "happens" to be with us by accident or luck and the subjective qualities are within our own control.  (#### 1 draw a person and then on one side write supposedly objective attributes and the other side supposedly subjective attributes.) 

Judgmentalness

As a result of this division we feel justified in evaluating  as well as praising or blaming the qualities on the subjective but not the qualities on the objective side.  For example we are led to believe it is right to blame a person who is lazy, has violent thoughts or emotions or it is right to legally punish a person that commits a violent crime.  Similarly we are led to believe it is right to praise people of great work ethic, and people who are peaceful and compassionate such as mother Teresa and Gandhi.  However the truth is whenever we investigate scientifically into why people think feel and behave the way they do the results we get are always related to either the social or natural environment they live in or some genetic traits they have inherited or a combination of both which are ultimately out of their control.  This means that our moral judgements and legal actions against these people are scientifically unjustifiable.

Shamefulness

As to the objective side we are encouraged to ignore or look past these qualities because they cannot be controlled by the person and hence have nothing to do with how the person really is on the "inside".   And yet the truth is that these qualities are both very important and inseparable to how a person thinks feel and behave on the "inside".  As a result we are secretly attracted to youthful people having beautiful facial features, proportioned body, above average height, chiseled jaw (which is a sign of high bone density), nice toned muscles smooth pore less skin and from a good family with higher wealth, education and social status.  And yet we are ashamed to admit to these desires because we are led to believe these qualities are superficial and have nothing to do with who the person really is.

All qualities are on objective side

What follows from Zhuangzi's insight and what this presentation tries to make clear is that a person's personality, emotions, thoughts and action are all things that can be experienced, which by our definition, are the objects of experience.  They are in the same category as a person's intelligence, physical appearance,  age, gender, health conditions, family background, wealth and social status.  That which is able to show these particular personality, emotions, thoughts and actions  is the unindividuated subject and not the person as an individual.  Once we can be clear of this point we can be more forgiving about people's personality, thoughts, emotions, and actions.  At the same time we can also feel free to appreciate and even aspire to the youth, beauty and other good fortunes of the selected few.

Emotions and health

In the end it is these negative emotions of loneliness, selfishness, judgmentalness, and shame that deteriorate our health. And it is these positive emotions of being connected with the universe, compassion, open mindedness, appreciation of beauty  and freedom from shame that is health promoting.  These negative emotions flow naturally from our misconception of the world and our misconstrued subject object relation and we are powerless to  turn them into the positive emotions unless we are able to identify and correct these misconceptions.  It is in this sense  that Zhuangzi's insight can be said to contain one of the deepest and most profound secrets of the healing power of traditional Chinese medicine.

Illusion and fear of death

Lastly and most importantly, combining the function of subject and object in an individual person creates the illusion and hence the fear of death.   If one could only penetrate to the very depth of Zhuangzi’s insight he would be able to see through the illusion of death and transform his fear into a calming sense of immortality.

If the subject or that which is able to experience, act or react is part of an individual person it will surely seize to function once the individual person perishes.  However if subject is not part of an individual person but is unindividuated and an essential part of experience it will continue to function even if the individual person perishes. 

What is your essence

Now the question is what is your essence.  Or in other words what makes you you?  Does the individual physical person define who you really are or the subject of experience?  If its the first you will perish. If it is the second then you will be immortal.  

First thought experiment

To answer this question we can do two thought experiments.  The first is as follows:  Imagine you are still sitting in this classroom right now listening to my presentation except that you started to notice that your physical appearance has changed, your gender, race and even your sexual preference has also changed.  Further more you started to notice your taste and your temperament has also changed.  And finally you also noticed that you start to think about different issues and have different opinions.  Then you can ask yourself, are you still you?  Are you afraid of this scenario like you are afraid of death?  And if this change happens to you would you call this death? Similarly if  you ever had a dream where you became someone other than yourself would you say you had a dream of being dead? If you do not feel like this is death then you do not think your physical person is your essence.

   

Second thought experiment

Now the second scenario is as follows: If there is a person standing in front of you right now who is an exact copy of you.  He or she has the same DNA as you, looking feeling thinking and acting like you. Now if we were to tell you that we are going to let this person live do you feel twice more alive?  And what if we were to kill this person would you feel like you yourself is dead?  And finally if we were to tell you we are going to let this person live forever but you will no longer have any awareness or experience of anything are you going to feel like you have achieved immortality or death?

Congratulations

If you don’t like the idea of having your exact copy live and turning your own awareness off forever then you identify your essence with the subject.  And since subject is an essential half of the indescribable and unreferrable experience, it will always be there as long as there is experience.  In other words you have achieved immortality, congratulations!

---  

Liar Paradox  

I wish to end my presentation by showing that these misconceptions created problems even in the most rigorous academic disciplines such as, logic, mathematics and computer science an how this important insight contains the seed to resolve these issues

We do not only mistakenly think of people and animals as being both object and subject but also languages and mathematics.  And when we do this we create logical and mathematical confusions and paradoxes.  One of the most famous paradox in logic is called liar paradox.  In its simplest form it states: “This sentence is false”  And then the question is whether this sentence is true or false.  If you think this sentence is true then it means you agree with what this sentence says which is that this sentence is false.  So is this sentence true or false?  Similarly if you think this sentence is false then you disagree with the statement of this sentence which means you think this sentence is true.  So is this sentence true or false?

The problem of liar paradox does not only show up in our natural language such as English but also in mathematics, formal logic such as set theory and computer language.  Without exception  this problem is considered to be the deepest and the most perplexing in each of these disciplines.  In mathematics this problem is discovered by Kurt Goedel which is called incomplete theorem.  In set theory it is discovered by Bertrand Russell.  In computer science it is discovered by Allan Turing and is the basic principle for computer virus programs.

The key problem with these paradoxes is they are self referential. We use language and mathematics to refer and describe objects of experience which means in this capacity they function as subjects.  And we know that if they function as subject they cannot also function as objects at the same time.     This means that as subject they cannot refer or describe themselves.  And when we allow them to do it the statements they make would lose all meaning. 

For example if we see the snow in front of us having the color white we can express this in a statement such as "The snow is white."  In this capacity the statement is being used to refer to and describe an object of experience, the snow, which makes this statement function as a subject.  However we can also determine whether this statement is true or not.  For instance if we look closely and discovered that the snow in front of us is really not white but dirty and yellow we can then say our first statement "the snow is white" is false.  And when we do this the first statement the "snow is white" is no longer being used as subject but as an object or more specifically a second order object.

We can divide objects into two levels.  The first level objects are natural objects that have all kinds of qualities but cannot be true or false. For instance we can say snow is white but we cannot say snow is true or false.  The second order objects are statements.  Statements are reference and descriptions about first order objects such as snow is white or sky is blue.  These statements or second order objects can then be true or false.   For example we can say the statement the sky is blue is false.  

What is interesting is we use statements in its subjective function to refer and describe first order object.  Once the statement is made it turns from subject into a second order object that can be further referred to or described as being true or false by some other statements.  

However the existence of the second order object is dependent upon the existence of some first order object.  If there is no first order object then there is no reference or descriptions that can be made.  And when that is the case there is no statement or second order object.  In other words statement without any content is just like subject without object.  It is something that does not exist in reality.  

The problem with liar paradox is that we forget that there is really no statement when there is no first order object and allows meaningless statement to be formed.  The liar sentence "This statement is false" despite its wording is really not a statement. This is because there is no first order object such as snow or sky in the sentence.  And when there is no first order object in the sentence then there is no need for reference and description and hence no need for any statement.  And when there is no statement there is no second order object.  When there is no first order nor second order objects there is really no object which means the first word in the liar sentence, the definite article, "this" cannot refer to  anything.  Similarly the second word "statement" also can not designate a real statement.  And when there is no statement the idea of truth or falsity does not apply.  This is why the liar sentence is in fact a meaningless sentence that is not based on reality.  It is just like treating subject as if it were an object of experience.