First Person Perspective

...

on the Kripke’s claim that there could be pain in the absence of any sort of brain state. Kripke’s view is then strengthen by John Searle’s first-person thought experiment as Searle’s thought experiment is the detailed version of Kripke’s arguments. In a result, with well-supported claims and well-explained examples, for which an apparent evidences that persuade us to belief the article.

According to Saul Kripke’s first-person perspective argument, for any brain state there will always have a candidate that being identical with pain. It is possible to imagine both being in pain without any brain state being stimulate and not being in pain when brain state is stimulated. Therefore, painful can be realized without through any brain state activation. In addition, there is not possible to imagine from the third person-perspective that one is not in pain with one’s brain state being in total realization of pain unless there is behavioral evidence. The causal role of pain involving behavior as third-person basis for ascribing pain. For example, Mary suffers headaches in her workplace but nobody notice her illness. It can be seen from her face expression that indicates her painful and uncomfortable feeling as well as her action of taking medicine. From her bodily condition, we can see that she did fall in sick.

Moreover, imagining from the first-person point of view in the first sense need not to involve imagining from the first-person point of view in the second sense. For instances, if I imagine a fight of John as it might have been experienced by Donald, I do not thereby imagine being Donald. Meaning to say i can simply specify that the subject of one of my imagining is myself.

John Searle’s first-person thought experiment about the certain part of the brain is replaced by silicon chips. The consciousness then will diminish gradually until the behavior of the body is independent of consciousness. For instance, the eyes of a person are covered and tell him where we are and ask him “Do you know where you are?” he answered unconsciously the location that was told but inside his mind he wanted to say “No”. From this example can explain the Searle’s argument of the unconsciousness mental and external observable environment remains the same without influences by the mental states. Extend the example of Searle’s, let say my eyes are looking at the book, but I cannot remember the content of the book when you asking me.

We assume that if Saul Kripke’s argument is true, pain can be occurred without any brain state stimulation. The successful of Kripke’s argument will eventually result in that there is no brain state is identical with pain in which pain could be caused by the environmental factor as well as mental state. Moreover, Searle’s thought experiment will be applied to real life such that preserve the behavioral disposition and functional organization and make no difference to one’s conscious life even though the brain is implemented by the silicon chips. As the end, we will lost consciousness of ourselves and lost the control of our external behavior. All of this is valid if and only if the thesis is true.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, the first-person perspective creates in intimate perspective. The first person perspective is a different view with the third person perspective but at the same time these two perspectives are inseparable as we cannot discuss either one of them without the absence of another one. However, while the imagining of one’s discovery on the realization of the possibility from the first person perspective, one should always confirm the discovery from the third-person point of view. In addition, by using the first-person point of view, counterexamples could be discovered in order to claims whether the functional states is sufficient enough for mental states of affairs which grounded on the assumption that there is only one inhabitant in one’s body and not relying on the assumption on how mental and physical realm are related.