Nagel And Nagel's Theory Of Reductionistic Experiences
Anti- reductionists believe that subjective experiences is not reducible to objective characterizations. Nagel states that subjective experiences is referred to pour-soi which is french for subjective. Subjective is described as “for- itself” and are based of feelings and emotions.
b. How does his bat example illustrate Nagel’s argument that these experiences cannot be objectively understood? Nagel states objective as en-soi which is french for “in-itself” and is based on facts and measurable quantities. Nagel uses the bat example and states that bats have sonar perception and that it's utterly unimaginable from the perception of a human being. He states that we know what it's like …show more content…
He explains how these experiences are not captured by reductive explanations. He believes that consciousness is not an explanatory system, nor a suctional state, and nor an intentional state. He states that reductionism fails to specifically explicat a subjective experience. He states that in order to define consciousness we need to include the phenomenological features of experience. Phenomenology is the study of subjective qualitative experiences;It describes our experiences with consciousness.Nagel is saying that if were going to give a satisfactory definition of what it is like to actually be conscious it can not just be a reductive explanation but also a phenomenological description of our experiences. Nagel believes that in order to understand consciousness and have a good explanation for it we need to understand the link between the subjective and objective views. He believes that objective accounts dismiss phenomenological descriptions also he states that, “ To be conscious at all seems to imply that there is something that it is like to be that organisms.” Which means that consciousness only exists if and only if a state of being exist. Thus, he concludes that consciousness here is not a private