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 i

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.