The title may be a play on a somewhat well-known philosophy paper, "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" by Thomas Nagel in The Philosophical Review (Oct 1974): "Our

The title may be a play on a somewhat well-known philosophy paper, "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" by Thomas Nagel in The Philosophical Review (Oct 1974): "Our own experience provides the basic material for our imagination, whose range is therefore limited. It will not help to try to imagine that one has webbing on one's arms, which enables one to fly around at dusk and dawn catching insects in one's mouth; that one has very poor vision, and perceives the surrounding world by a system of reflected high-frequency sound signals .... In so far as I can imagine this (which is not very far), it tells me only what it would be like for me to behave as a bat behaves. But that is not the question. I want to know what it is like for a bat to be a bat. Yet if I try to imagine this, I am restricted to the resources of my own mind, and those resources are inadequate to the task." Edit: The author addresses these questions - without mentioning Nagel by name - in the section "Why Imagining Other Minds Is Important for Understanding them".