Thomas Nagel Case

In the article, "What is it Like to be a Bat", Thomas Nagel formulates arguments based on the idea that there are experiences that humans will never be able to experience nor understand. He chose the subject of bats to further exemplify since humans share some similarities, such as being warm blooded as well as similar basic anatomy. He argues that all bats have experiences thus indicating that there is something it is like to be a bat. However, this experience is completely subjective and, us humans will never be able to know the qualia of a bat. Nagel argues that mental states as well as consciousness can only be a subjective matter, however; he doesn't completley dismiss the idea of physicalism but rather believes we don't understand it yet.

Nagel assesses that there is no type of research we can use to "extrapolate the inner life of the bat from our own case" (438). To further explain his argument, Nagel uses a couple of examples. The one he likes to focus on would be sonar perception. Although it may be true that bat sonar is comparable to human sight since they share similar function, but the experience of sonar and sight can not be comparable. As humans, all we can do is imagine what this sonar looks like by manipulating sound waves rather than light waves. This would allow us to basically get an idea of how a bat perceives sonar, however; this does not allow us to experience what that bat is. To experience what the bat is experiencing, the qualia have to be the same which in this case they are not.

We are unable to imagine what is like to be a bat because we do not have any experience of sonar perception thus we don't have any basis for our imagination. As Nagael states, "'Imagining additions to my present experience or by imagining segments gradually subtracted from it, or by imagining some combination of additions, subtractions, and modifications" (439) are all techniques to attempt to imagine the experience of a bat, but are held back by our personal experiences. Our imagination only takes us as far as imagining being nearsighted or taking on the activities of a bat or even attempting to fly, however; this will only be our experience to be a bat and not a bat's experience to be a bat. Thus concluding, functional knowledge will always be ample however experimental knowledge can not be attained.

Another perspective to this argument would be look at a person that has been blind from birth. This person might be taught about light or even colors and how people use it. They can be given all the knowledge and training however they will never understand what it is like to actually see. Furthermore, this is subjective experience that is associated with the consciousness. Nagel's argument implies that conscious beings all have experiences thus there's experiences can not be comprehended on a subjective level by any other being than the one experiencing the experience. If we are conscious beings, then there must be something it is like to be a conscious being just like something it is like to be a bat.

Furthermore, Nagel explains how science neglects ineffable subjective experience. Science allows to study neurons and their function as well as their contributions to our brain but these studies do not provide an explanation for consciousness. Science has no way of proving the existence of consciousness even though humans seem to have it. Science only accounts objectively where a point of view is not necessary, leaving the subjective experience neglected.

Nagels' essay was written to challenge the view points of physicalists, which believe that mental phenomena can be reduced to the physical world. Nagel's main objective was to depict how subjective experience can not be viewed by objective means and nor can it be viewed by scientific means. However, the problem is that his arguments were flawed in a number of ways. Nagel also comes very close to contradicting himself mid-way by simply experiencing himself as a bat rather than knowing what it like for a bat