The Man Who Mistaken His Wife For A Hat Analysis

1297 Words6 Pages
Consciousness Have you ever done something without really thinking about it? Everyone does it, it is unconscious reaction, or in other words, you do not even realize you are doing it. In this essay I will talk about our consciousness and how sometimes we can be aware or unaware of our consciousness. I will also be giving examples of such events throughout the stories of Oliver Sacks. In The Man Who Mistaken His wife for a Hat, Sacks tells the stories of his individual patients and their consciousness of their “neurology of identity”. As stated above, consciousness is the awareness of one’s surroundings and actions. One of the stories Sacks tells is the one of the man who mistaken his wife for a hat. Dr. P was his name; he began to have…show more content…
In his essay, “What Is It Like To Be a Bat?” Nagel explains that conscious is the mixture of subjectivity and objectivity. This means it includes everything internal and external around you. He then goes on to try to explain how every organism has a conscious or a mental state. “Fundamentally an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something there is to be that organism- something that is like for the organism.” Nagel then goes on to say if there is something that is like to be the organism, what is that something? How are we to find out? “I have said that the essence of the beliefs that bats have experience is that there is something that it is like to be a bat. Now we know that most bats (the microchirptera, to be precise) perceive the external world primarily by sonar...but bat sonar, though clearly a form of perception, is not similar in its operation to any sense that we possess, and there is no reason to suppose that it is subjectively like anything we can experience or imagine. This appears to create difficulties for the notion of what it is like to be a bat. We must consider whether any method will permit us to extrapolate to the inner life of the bat from our own case, and if not, what alternative methods there may be for understanding the notion.” What he is saying here is we obviously do not have the same experiences as a bat and so we must find another way to “get inside” their heads, but how? One cannot just imagine or pretend to be a bat because we are limited to our knowledge of bats. This is just like the fable of Tolstoy and Chekhov when they encountered a horse in the woods. Chekhov exclaimes that Tolstoy must have been a horse in his past life, because how else could one be able to imagine what a horse could be thinking about? These stories have the same message in it, one cannot fully understand another organism unless you are that
Open Document