The topic of the mind-body interaction is the controversial issue regarding the relationship between the mind and the body, or physical matter. Typical physicalists explain the mind-body problem by simply reducing the mental to the physical. One American philosopher, Thomas Nagel, states in his paper “What is it like to be a bat?” that consciousness must be addressed in order to explain the interaction between the mind and the body. Consciousness is one of the main complications in current theorizing about the mind as there is a major lack of agreement revolving around the theory of consciousness. In his paper, Nagel does not explicitly say that physicalism is false, but he does emphasize that physicalism cannot explain the mind because it…show more content… From our own experiences, we cannot possibly know what it is like to be a bat. Although we may be able to relate to certain sensations such as fear or hunger, we do not have the capacity to understand what it is like for a bat to experience these phenomena. Nagel says that the idea of imagining what it is like to really be a bat is beyond our ability to comprehend. He goes on to point out that if humans cannot know what it is like to be a bat, then they cannot know what it is like to be a form of extra-terrestrial life. Even more so, we cannot know what it is like to be deaf or blind if we are not either of those things. Nagel further shows that a blind person from birth may be able to learn and develop an understanding of what light is and how people who are not blind use it, but they will never truly understand what it is like to see. Nagel’s argument is somewhat valid, but it does show some drawbacks. I think that a blind person could indeed imagine what it is like to see through creating images in one’s head. Human minds and imaginations are diverse and expansive, and I believe that anything is imaginable. Further, I think that a person who is not deaf or blind can understand what it is like to be either deaf or blind by blocking certain sensations such as their ability to see and hear, either with a blind fold or ear plugs. If one of these things is inhibited, I believe that a person can truly understand what it is like to be deaf or blind even if they are not themselves deaf or blind. This idea weakens Nagel’s argument against physicalism and its ability to explain the
