May 162016

Akins, Kathleen, and . What is it Like to Be Boring and Myopic?

1993, in Dennett and His Critics: Demystifying Mind, ed. B Dahlbom, Blackwell, 124-160.

Summary: A response to Thomas Nagel’s famous paper “What is it Like to be a Bat?”. Akins uses neuroscientific data to argue that we can find out that bats may not actually have a point of view, and that, contrary to Nagel, this kind of objective study can bring us closer to understanding individuals’ subjective experiences, not further away.

Comment: As "What is it Like to be a Bat?" is frequently taught, this paper serves as an interesting counterpoint response to it, providing an alternative perspective. A bit technical and heavy on hard neuroscience, but full understanding of that part is not essential to grasping the basic argument.

  One Response to “What is it Like to Be Boring and Myopic?”

  1. AYO, MY BOY Nagal is entirely wrong! This fool actually thought that objective knowledge teaches you nothing! IS this guy seriously insinuating that objective knowledge won’t get you closer to knowing what its like to be a bat. LOL, Nagal is entailing that mental events or ‘qualia’ are independent of physical states or objective knowledge. Sounds pretty dualist to me. Smell you later Dualist dummy!

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>