How do you know that? Do you know what it's like to be me?

You're close, really close! None of us know what it is like to be anyone else, that's the point. We think we can imagine we know, but we truly do not.

They can make the claim to know what it is like to be you as much as you can make the claim that you know what it is like to be a bat.

I will know the difference. That's enough for me.

How will you know the difference unless you are a bat? You cannot.

I can. You don't have access to my subjective experience to be able to claim I don't.

You can't because you cannot become a bat, so thinking you can is just that, thought. I don't need your subjective experience to know.

Are you claiming you know what it is like to be me? You can't know about the bat thing unless you know what it is like to be me.

I know you're a human, therefore I know you cannot know what it's like to be a bat, as an objective fact, regardless of how you think you think subjectively.

I am a human who objectively knows what it's like to be a bat.

I have greater epistemic authority over what I know than others.

> who objectively knows what it's like to be a bat.

Sigh. Thinking you know and knowing is not the same, especially thinking you "objectively" know something. Maybe you should read the article posted instead of commenting these sorts of sentences.

I've read it many times over the years. I objectively know what it is like to be a bat and you cannot claim I don't without claiming you objectively know what it is like to be me.

If this frustrates you, then congratulations; we have a starting point for discussion. Be open to describing where that frustration originates.