Consider the possibility that the cognizant part of a bat is the same than the awareness of a person. Why must we stick to Nagels presupposition that being a bat is not the same as being a human. This does not imply that a bat 's insight is on a similar level of a human or that bats can think at all or that bats can even have an indistinguishable encounters from a man. I am trying to say that if a bat has a cognizant personality then why ought to the genuine cognizant perspective be not the same as that of an individual? Perhaps once this cognizant perspective is clarified then we will have the capacity to really realize what it resembles to be a
Consider the possibility that the cognizant part of a bat is the same than the awareness of a person. Why must we stick to Nagels presupposition that being a bat is not the same as being a human. This does not imply that a bat 's insight is on a similar level of a human or that bats can think at all or that bats can even have an indistinguishable encounters from a man. I am trying to say that if a bat has a cognizant personality then why ought to the genuine cognizant perspective be not the same as that of an individual? Perhaps once this cognizant perspective is clarified then we will have the capacity to really realize what it resembles to be a