Thomas Nagel's "What is it like to be a Bat"

Don't interpret my use of "illusion" to mean unreal. I'm using it to mean that the experience is built up from "smaller" experiences, some of which may not even be related to color. At some point we get to nano-experiences that cannot be reduced. I'm not currently arguing whether nano-experiences are fundamental to physics or constructed from non-experience-related physical stuff.

~~ Paul

Thanks Paul.  Apologies as I completely missed the distinction.

Anyone asking “who is getting fooled in the illusion?” isn’t following the argument carefully enough. A more important question may be “can we reliably deduce anything fundamental about the nature of our consciousness purely by experiencing its functional interaction with our environment?” 

Whether biological or not we are beholden to its machinations.

I'm still not following you.

Let's say we go beyond using our first person experience of consciousness to probe its fundamental nature.  Lets further posit an explanation emerges through the scientific process that provides an ironclad physical explanation of consciousness that is reducible to a myriad of smaller processes.  That the "desktop" explanation is proven true and our consciousness is nothing more than an optimized illusion of reality designed for fitness.

I'm still going to ask questions like "who's looking at the desktop?"

(As I've already exposed myself in misunderstanding Paul, I'm probably missing something here too.)

I'm still not following you.

Let's say we go beyond using our first person experience of consciousness to probe its fundamental nature.  Lets further posit an explanation emerges through the scientific process that provides an ironclad physical explanation of consciousness that is reducible to a myriad of smaller processes.  That the "desktop" explanation is proven true and our consciousness is nothing more than an optimized illusion of reality designed for fitness.

I'm still going to ask questions like "who's looking at the desktop?"

(As I've already exposed myself in misunderstanding Paul, I'm probably missing something here too.)

Once you submit to the model, one has to acknowledge that there is no ‘you’ outside of the biological processes. The fact that it feels like there is, is the illusion. That you may want to continue this argument may be a testament to how effective the illusion is  (although I’d concede that illusion is probably an unfortunate word)

That you may want to continue this argument may be a testament to how effective the illusion is

Or that the notion of it being an illusion is itself illusory 

Once you submit to the model, one has to acknowledge that there is no ‘you’ outside of the biological processes. The fact that it feels like there is, is the illusion. That you may want to continue this argument may be a testament to how effective the illusion is  (although I’d concede that illusion is probably an unfortunate word)

So are you saying there's no such thing as a first person perspective? There's no malf in there? 

Just asking.

It simply questions the facile "conscious experiences are indivisible and fundamental" argument. Once you start considering what I think is really going on, things become complex, as well they should.

~~ Paul

Who is making this argument?

Full essay is here: https://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1...el_bat.pdf

What is it like to be a bat? That's funny as I recently asked the same question in regards to remote viewing the perceptions of animals. Why do remote viewers always see with a human cognitive bias? If the target in the sealed envelope had a little asterisk next to the target coordinates that noted, "from the perspective of a bat", what would the remote viewer describe?

The reason I ask about non-human perceptions is that animals would certainly assign significance differently or have different sense impressions at a location.

Ask a human to remote view the South Congress Bridge over Lady Bird Lake in Austin TX and the person might describe the ordinary things a human would find significant: cars, arches, tall buildings, people engaged in water sports on the river/lake, etc. But ask someone to RV the same spot from a bat's perspective and maybe the RVer would not even pick up the strong visuals like tall buildings or water sports, and instead describe things upside down and have the impression that this feels like a home surrounded by friends and family, maybe auditory impressions would be much more significant than visual impressions, or at dusk perhaps a strong hunger for mosquitos?