If he were capable of describing subjective experience in words with the exactitude you're asking for, then his central argument would be false. The point is that objective measures, like writing, are external, and cannot describe internal subjective experience. Its one thing to probe the atoms; its another thing to be the atoms themselves.

Basically his answer to the question "What is it like to be a bat?" is that its impossible to know.

>If he were capable of describing subjective experience in words with the exactitude you're asking for, then his central argument would be false.

Indeed! Makes you think: maybe it's a bug rather than a feature.

Tautologically, its “batty”.

Worship of subjectivity is a tell for Mysterianism.