Identity Theory

...

wrote a paper entitled, “What is it like to be a bat?” It expresses how the human mind is too complex to captivate and how it also expands and similates of having a bat’s brain. Lewis’ paper, “Knowing What It’s Like”, counters with Nagel’s understanding of the human brain. He states that humans cannot think nor be a bat, because we are not bats.

Nagel is captivated by the idea that we can all think like bats. “We may call this the subjective character of experience... it tells me only what it would be like for me to behave as a bat behaves.” (Nagel) Although we are not bats, we can think like one. Lewis, on the other hand, believes that Nagel’s statement is nonsense. No one can think like a bat. Therefore, we cannot be bats. Comparing a human to a bat is like comparing an experience of tasting Vegemite. “ You have not tasted Vegemite. So you do not know how it tastes. And you never will, unless you taste Vegemite.” (Lewis) Simply, you will never know the taste because you never the time to taste it. Therefore, you just never taste Vegemite.

This whole analysis made me realized that will be two (or more) sides of an idea. Yet, it creates a bond of knowledge that people cannot ever agree on. I am siding with Nagel with this his theory of thinking like a bat. To me, his theory just shows that people just have different perspectives of seeing things. Not everyone needs to be the “bat” in order to understand a bat. His statements do not imply that you are a bat. I believe he is just stating that he respects the difference people’s different psyche.