Talk:What Is It Like to Be a Bat?

Title
I'd like to move this to What is it like to be a bat?, but that title has already been edited, so I'd have to use the tools to delete it and make the move. If anyone objects, please say here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions
There are many things that can be done to make this article better. First of which a better, more in depth, description of the article. What is it like to be a bat? is a fabulous, eye opening piece that deserves much more than a small blurb. Second, consciousness and perception definitely need to have their place in this article being that that's what this piece of work is all about. Third there are so many supporting theories and articles to this one that just must be integrated. Furthermore there are many ideas that may refute this articles which too have their place to be mentioned. Another thing that deserves a part in this article would be a background on the author and how they came to writing this piece.--Ktsqrl33 (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Illuminatus!
Illuminatus!, first published in 1975, the year after this paper was published, includes the rhyme "To be a bat's a bum thing/A silly and a dumb thing/But at least a bat is something/And you're not a thing at all". Could this be a reference to Nagel's bat argument? -- The Anome (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice question! Wilson and Shea did not write these lyrics themselves, though. They are from a 1934 Mickey Mouse movie, in which a fairy grants Mickey a wish and he gets wings. He meets some bats and they sing a song to them, telling him he's 'not a thing at all'. Quite shocking, especially if you are a child or tripping on LSD as the characters in Illuminatus! as they hear this song. For the lyrics: https://nothingbut-flyingmouse.blogspot.com/2005/08/1-lyrics-disney-cartoon.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:2626:2100:E857:AE96:87C8:5E2A (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Strange criticisms
Under the section Criticisms this passage appears:

"Dennett denies Nagel's claim that the bat's consciousness is inaccessible, contending that any "interesting or theoretically important" features of a bat's consciousness would be amenable to third-person observation."

The statement manifests a willful ignorance of what consciousness means. (It cannot be observed from the outside.) This reflects so poorly on Dennett that perhaps out of compassion for the fellow this should be deleted from the article. 2601:200:C000:1A0:399B:B3BD:A6CC:C6B3 (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It appears it is your misunderstanding of what consciousness is that could use some help. Actually, consciousness is not so ethereal or mysterious. Dualism was a real concern in more religious times, but since science has wiped away those confusions, there is no "mind-body problem" and all consciousness is illusory. You know no more about what it is like to be you than the computer I am typing on knows what it is like to be it.2601:182:C80:3E10:BD7A:135:CE5E:1C5B (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Another “we have science now so philosophy is obsolete!” nonsense poster. People who say such things prove nothing except their own ignorance about what philosophy is. It’s the new anti-intellectualism that masquerades as intellectual. It doesn’t help that particle physicists these days frequently step outside their lane and pretend to be experts on questions like “what is nothing?”, which is not a physics question to begin with. Maybe we should start calling them out for “physicsplaining”. It doesn’t matter what Steven Pinker thinks; the fact is that we definitely need more liberal arts education, and less singleminded emphasis on STEM, that much is for sure. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:64EC (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)