4 ms·

The article mentions bats, and it mentions philosopher Thomas Nagel, but it doesn't mention Nagel's famous 1974 paper, What Is It Like To Be A Bat?. I assume th

by sowbug 3y ago

The article mentions bats, and it mentions philosopher Thomas Nagel, but it doesn't mention Nagel's famous 1974 paper, What Is It Like To Be A Bat?. I assume the article title is a riff on that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F

taneq 3y ago
There's always a wavery, indefinite line between 'cribbing from un-cited sources' and 'everybody should get that reference.' I'd assume the article's on the latter side of the divide, but still worth mentioning (as you've done) for people who don't read this stuff all the time.
fsckboy 3y ago
just to add on with a slant toward the types of things HN is interested in, the point of "what is it like to be a bat" is essentially, you can't know what it's like to be a bat unless you are a bat (and I don't mean the paper should be read for that conclusion, you develop far more insight thinking your way through it) The old "how do I even know my red is your red" is a little piece of this puzzle. Perhaps someday the sci-fiction notion of loading a stimcard into the slot behind your ear will let you experience what it's like to be a bat... but the point of the paper is, will you know for certain, or can you know, if that's actually what it feels like? Now, that was just a rehash, which you didn't need me for. What I want to add on is--everybody remain civil, this is a serious intellectual question--we know what transgender people feel like they aren't, but do they know what it feels like to be what they believe they are? Of course it feels like "you" (or "me", depending the voice I'm supposed to be writing) but comparatively, how would anybody know what else it feels like? Do men and women feel differently? We think they do, but perhaps they don't. Perhaps they just think about different things, with the same feelings. Of course, some would be offended by that suggestion, declaring that men and women don't think differently. It's a separate series of questions, "I want to be treated as if I'm X" and to preserve the suspension of disbelief, "please don't indicate you doubt I am X because that won't feel like being X". This is the only way I can think of it. I don't understand why other people don't think of it this way. But, I'm one of those people who doesn't mind talking in theaters, it doesn't ruin anything for me.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  Actually, Nagel's initial point with "Wiiltbab" is the question of whether it is, in fact, like anything to be a bat. He noted that we are almost certain that it not like anything to be a rock, and definitely like something to be a human. He chose bats as an example of an interesting "midway" case to use for discussing, initially, the question of what might be required for it to "be like something to be an X". He did certainly touch on the question of "if it is like something to be a bat, what is that like?" but it was a secondary question that follows only if you can first conclude that it is indeed like something to be a bat.
- causi 3y ago
  how do I even know my red is your red I get why kids ask this. I don't get why adults ask this. If you have normal color vision and don't have a tumor in your visual cortex your red is as close to my red as the red subpixels are on two units of the same television. Sure, you can't look at them and positively measure their identicalness, but they're being generated with the same hardware.
  - fsckboy 3y ago
    sorry, you assume that, you hypothesize that, but you don't know that. people like different colors, people like different tastes. according to you, "no, same hardware"
  - messe 3y ago
    > Sure, you can't look at them and positively measure their identicalness, but they're being generated with the same hardware. But to continue your analogy, after so many years of experiencing the world differently—different pasts, upbringings, worldviews—are they being interpreted by the same software? And that's the question that the paper really poses: are qualia real, and if so, is it ever possible to conclude that two individuals experience qualia in the same way?
    - The_Colonel 3y ago
      My intuition says yes, they are basically perceived the same way. Color recognition is so elementary it seems more hardware-based than software-based. I think there are better examples for the point (which I assume it's trying to make). Take a piece of rock, does it look the same way to different people? (there the answer is IMHO no).
the-mitr 3y ago
I read this article as part of fantastic anthology The Mind's Eye edited by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett.

by sowbug 3y ago

taneq 3y ago

There's always a wavery, indefinite line between 'cribbing from un-cited sources' and 'everybody should get that reference.' I'd assume the article's on the latter side of the divide, but still worth mentioning (as you've done) for people who don't read this stuff all the time.

fsckboy 3y ago

just to add on with a slant toward the types of things HN is interested in, the point of "what is it like to be a bat" is essentially, you can't know what it's like to be a bat unless you are a bat (and I don't mean the paper should be read for that conclusion, you develop far more insight thinking your way through it) The old "how do I even know my red is your red" is a little piece of this puzzle. Perhaps someday the sci-fiction notion of loading a stimcard into the slot behind your ear will let you experience what it's like to be a bat... but the point of the paper is, will you know for certain, or can you know, if that's actually what it feels like? Now, that was just a rehash, which you didn't need me for. What I want to add on is--everybody remain civil, this is a serious intellectual question--we know what transgender people feel like they aren't, but do they know what it feels like to be what they believe they are? Of course it feels like "you" (or "me", depending the voice I'm supposed to be writing) but comparatively, how would anybody know what else it feels like? Do men and women feel differently? We think they do, but perhaps they don't. Perhaps they just think about different things, with the same feelings. Of course, some would be offended by that suggestion, declaring that men and women don't think differently. It's a separate series of questions, "I want to be treated as if I'm X" and to preserve the suspension of disbelief, "please don't indicate you doubt I am X because that won't feel like being X". This is the only way I can think of it. I don't understand why other people don't think of it this way. But, I'm one of those people who doesn't mind talking in theaters, it doesn't ruin anything for me.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
Actually, Nagel's initial point with "Wiiltbab" is the question of whether it is, in fact, like anything to be a bat. He noted that we are almost certain that it not like anything to be a rock, and definitely like something to be a human. He chose bats as an example of an interesting "midway" case to use for discussing, initially, the question of what might be required for it to "be like something to be an X". He did certainly touch on the question of "if it is like something to be a bat, what is that like?" but it was a secondary question that follows only if you can first conclude that it is indeed like something to be a bat.
causi 3y ago
how do I even know my red is your red I get why kids ask this. I don't get why adults ask this. If you have normal color vision and don't have a tumor in your visual cortex your red is as close to my red as the red subpixels are on two units of the same television. Sure, you can't look at them and positively measure their identicalness, but they're being generated with the same hardware.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  sorry, you assume that, you hypothesize that, but you don't know that. people like different colors, people like different tastes. according to you, "no, same hardware"
- messe 3y ago
  > Sure, you can't look at them and positively measure their identicalness, but they're being generated with the same hardware. But to continue your analogy, after so many years of experiencing the world differently—different pasts, upbringings, worldviews—are they being interpreted by the same software? And that's the question that the paper really poses: are qualia real, and if so, is it ever possible to conclude that two individuals experience qualia in the same way?
  - The_Colonel 3y ago
    My intuition says yes, they are basically perceived the same way. Color recognition is so elementary it seems more hardware-based than software-based. I think there are better examples for the point (which I assume it's trying to make). Take a piece of rock, does it look the same way to different people? (there the answer is IMHO no).

the-mitr 3y ago

I read this article as part of fantastic anthology The Mind's Eye edited by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett.