What is it like to be a bat? (1974) [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: What is it like to be a bat? (1974) [pdf]

#101

Post by bondarchuk » Thu, May 04, 2023, 9:52 AM UTC

fsckboy wrote: post #72

bondarchuk wrote: post #15

I am increasingly of the opinion that the phrases "what it is like to be a bat", or "there is something it is like to be a bat", are simply a linguistic sleight of hand masking a plain old dualistic standpoint. Just because these sentences make sense in our everyday language, does not mean they are suitable for technical and rigorous philosophical discussions. For one, the "something" in the 2nd formulation (or simpl…

> phrases "what it is like to be a bat", or "there is something it is like to be a bat", > are simply a linguistic sleight of hand masking a > plain old dualistic standpoint philosophers have differentiated these into three different questions "What is it like to be?" has to do with the nature of consciousness. "word games" has to do with any use of language, nothing to do with consciousness. You could make a word-ga…

>"word games" has to do with any use of language, nothing to do with consciousness.

I think philosophy of mind is especially prone to these issues because of how deeply the concept of "subjectivity" is embedded into language (not only at the level of semantics but also grammar). You can hardly say 2 words without pulling in a whole bunch of preconceived notions of what a subject is and how subjects relate to each other.

Re: What is it like to be a bat? (1974) [pdf]

#102

Post by bondarchuk » Thu, May 04, 2023, 10:04 AM UTC

hax0ron3 wrote: post #62

bondarchuk wrote: post #15

I am increasingly of the opinion that the phrases "what it is like to be a bat", or "there is something it is like to be a bat", are simply a linguistic sleight of hand masking a plain old dualistic standpoint. Just because these sentences make sense in our everyday language, does not mean they are suitable for technical and rigorous philosophical discussions. For one, the "something" in the 2nd formulation (or simpl…

>are simply a linguistic sleight of hand masking a plain old dualistic standpoint Are you assuming that dualism is invalid? If so, why? There is something to the distinction between physical reality and subjective experience that so far no-one has managed to explain. >I can easily imagine a complete physicalist explanation of consciousness which would still not lead to a valid answer of "what is it like to be a bat"…

>Are you assuming that dualism is invalid?

I am only noting a reliance of Nagel's bat arguments on dualist assumptions. Those who reject dualism can then draw their own conclusions ;)

>Then it would not be a complete physicalist explanation of consciousness. A complete physicalist explanation of consciousness, by definition, would have to account for subjective experience/qualia/whatever you want to call it.

For sure a physicalist explanation must somehow deal with these things, but what I mean is that it could turn out that the question "what is it like to be a bat?" is simply incoherent. If a question is in principle unanswerable, self-contradictory or nonsensical, then we can't very well demand an explanation.

Re: What is it like to be a bat? (1974) [pdf]

#103

Post by zzbn00 » Thu, May 04, 2023, 10:22 AM UTC

All bats have and use vision

"Bats are not blind and can in fact see quite well using their eyes. While most bats do have advanced ears that give them a form of vision in the dark known as echolocation, these good ears does not require them to have bad eyes. "

https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-bli...

Re: What is it like to be a bat? (1974) [pdf]

#104

Post by climb_stealth » Thu, May 04, 2023, 10:47 AM UTC

crispinb wrote: post #97

climb_stealth wrote: post #71

It doesn't quite answer this question but a good resource to learn what bats are like are the Batzilla and Megabattie youtube channels [0]. They are Australian bat rescuers and carers. Lovely ladies, short clips, no clickbait or other stupid youtube shenanigans. Just people who genuinely care for little people and try to spread the word. Educational as well. It feels like I know a whole lot about bats just from watch…

Nice (not to mention surprising) to see a mention of them here (of all places). Both channels are great sources of distraction. Flying foxes are splendid little creatures, and the carers are admirable. I'm blessed to live somewhere with a healthy flying fox population, and always look forward to the Moreton Bay fig and guava trees around my place fruiting - flying fox squeaks and squeals all night. I had been hoping…

Hah, good point about the echo-location! I did not even consider that. But then they do handle microbats on the channels every now and then which should bring it right back on topic.

Donating to Tolga bat hospital has been on my list for a while. Thanks for reminding me! Definitely a good cause to get behind. I shall get to that.

Re: What is it like to be a bat? (1974) [pdf]

#105

Post by edgyquant » Thu, May 04, 2023, 1:56 PM UTC

uoaei wrote: post #93

edgyquant wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you not doing the same? What reason do we have to assume that things don’t have experience?

See the final paragraph of the comment you're referring to.

I read it and I asked you a question, so don’t be a dick: answer it or don’t respond. Experience being “least complex” is in no way an objective truth especially if it’s fundamental. The only thing any person knows to be objectively true is that they have experience, we just assume other things don’t for some reason.

Re: What is it like to be a bat? (1974) [pdf]

#106

Post by uoaei » Thu, May 04, 2023, 3:40 PM UTC

edgyquant wrote: post #105

uoaei wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See the final paragraph of the comment you're referring to.

I read it and I asked you a question, so don’t be a dick: answer it or don’t respond. Experience being “least complex” is in no way an objective truth especially if it’s fundamental. The only thing any person knows to be objectively true is that they have experience, we just assume other things don’t for some reason.

We have no reason not to assume that all reality in the universe has experience (consciousness). That's the whole point I've made there.

Your last sentence explains the second-to-last one: all we know is we have experience, therefore all we can assume about not-us is that it also has experience, because any other explanation would unduly add more complexity to the theory of consciousness in the universe. It's just Occam's razor.

Re: What is it like to be a bat? (1974) [pdf]

#107

Post by edgyquant » Thu, May 04, 2023, 4:17 PM UTC

uoaei wrote: post #106

edgyquant wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it and I asked you a question, so don’t be a dick: answer it or don’t respond. Experience being “least complex” is in no way an objective truth especially if it’s fundamental. The only thing any person knows to be objectively true is that they have experience, we just assume other things don’t for some reason.

We have no reason not to assume that all reality in the universe has experience (consciousness). That's the whole point I've made there. Your last sentence explains the second-to-last one: all we know is we have experience, therefore all we can assume about not-us is that it also has experience, because any other explanation would unduly add more complexity to the theory of consciousness in the universe. It's just Oc…

That's the point I'm making though, and your previous comment seemed to imply the exact opposite of this? Glad we're in agreement then.

Re: What is it like to be a bat? (1974) [pdf]

#108

Post by uoaei » Thu, May 04, 2023, 4:52 PM UTC

edgyquant wrote: post #107

uoaei wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have no reason not to assume that all reality in the universe has experience (consciousness). That's the whole point I've made there. Your last sentence explains the second-to-last one: all we know is we have experience, therefore all we can assume about not-us is that it also has experience, because any other explanation would unduly add more complexity to the theory of consciousness in the universe. It's just Oc…

That's the point I'm making though, and your previous comment seemed to imply the exact opposite of this? Glad we're in agreement then.

I'm not sure what could be confusing you, I was careful to pick my words. I have noticed that you, specifically, tend to come in hot on ongoing conversations. I noticed it because I also have a tendency to do so and have been working to address it lately to varying success. But sometimes that causes some reading miscomprehensions because you're moving too fast.

If you try reading my comments again, thoroughly, you will find the following text:

> I am conscious, and I am made of matter. Everything else that is real is made of matter. There are other minds out there who also have this experience. With no further information, I must assume as the null hypothesis that everything in reality is conscious.

That was the point I was making. You re-iterated it in an attempt at some kind of rebuttal to something I didn't say.

Re: What is it like to be a bat? (1974) [pdf]

#109

Post by mellosouls » Thu, May 04, 2023, 10:33 PM UTC

uoaei wrote: post #21

mellosouls wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/cogaff/misc/like...

This kind of retort is a rookie error in the field of philosophy of mind. It clings too closely to notions of 1) self-awareness as an essential component of awareness per se (it's not) and 2) awareness as an essential component of experience per se (it's not). Edit: I was referring to the link, not the top-level comment. It reads like an attempt at rebuttal from someone relatively unfamiliar with the field writ large…

I was referring to the link, not the top-level comment

The link was posted as an earlier example of the comment it was replying to.

Re: What is it like to be a bat? (1974) [pdf]

#110

Post by enkid » Fri, May 05, 2023, 12:44 AM UTC

bondarchuk wrote: post #100

enkid wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paper is clearly asking what the difference in experience is between humans and bats. Whether a process is a "thing" or not is kind of beside the point. The core question is can we articulate how the core experience of being human is in comparison to the core experience of another creature that perceives the world in a fundamentally different way.

Even when you phrase it that way, you would seem to posit that an experience has a how it is . How something is is ultimately a judgment made by an experiencing subject. In that case, doesn't the question of comparing two "how it is"-judgments regarding experiences of different subjects become incoherent? On the one hand it implies a single experiencer who has two experiences and compares them, but on the other hand…

I feel like you're being purposefully obtuse to not be able to say the human experience is fundamentally different than a bat's experience, even if it's difficult to articulate a bat's unique experience in a human language.

Edit: let me expound on that, as I'm not just being difficult. What does this questioning actually get you? The question of how a bat experiences the world vice a human gives me a meaningful thought experiment about what is consciousness and what the limits of our perceptions are. Asking whether or not the words are meaningful gives me nothing because the meaning of the article is so intuitively clear. In other words, questioning whether the words have meaning leads to a less meaningful experience vice using my intuition to understand the meaning to my interpretation.