Does a Thing Influence the Mind?

Does a Thing Influence the Mind?

In everyday life, we believe that the mind is something which is within the body, somehow it is locatable within the body, and that it has some form of relationship with the biological brain. In philosophy, however, the problem of the mind (and the mind first of all has always been a problematic thing in philosophy, as an obstacle is problematic, and not easily accounted for by knowledges like biology) is that the mind seems transcendent to the brain, to the body, and indeed, to all the ways that we traditionally imagine the mind. What this means is that, if we consider a super-entity, an entity which encompasses all things, or houses all things, including the human brain, then this entity is also a mind. To put it simply, it seems that the mind houses the body and not the opposite way, and to extend this, it seems that the mind houses the universe rather than the universe housing the mind. The mind is, therefore, a transcendental entity, a 'super-entity' which resists being housed by other things, but rather, houses other things. It is, to put it simply, any entity that houses the human mind itself, in that, the mind of philosophy is not the human mind, it is somewhat like God's mind. An interesting issue that arises, as a side note to this paper, is whether then that we are in fact characters in the universe (a 'dream' of God, if you will) of God's mind, that is, are we within God's mind?

The mind, therefore, is a super-entity, which means that, all things may be figments of the mind...as some say, it is all in the mind...or, at the very least, and this is the chief concern for this paper, all things may be influenced by the mind, may be imbued by the mind, in that, we perceive things differently from how they are. It is the mind, for instance, that perceives a piece of paper as litter or as news. This depends on the mind, that is, things are dependent on the mind, if no entirely, then partially. The question we have, therefore, is whether, as the mind has influence upon things, and imbues things with meaning etc, and decides the fate of things (if the paper is news, it is read, and if it is litter, it is thrown away...) whether in a similar vein, things have an influence upon the mind? If we say that things indeed do have an influence upon the mind, then we are properly metaphysically dualistic, but, if we consider that the mind is not influenced by things, then we have a somewhat monistic understanding of the universe where things indeed could possibly be figments of the mind. So, does a thing influence the mind?

First, let us recourse briefly to the normal, everyday understanding of the mind. In this understanding, we have the case where the mind depreciates, as it is a part of the body, and so, it dies when the body dies. Since death is linked with the external world of things, it seems then that the mind itself is imbued with the external world of things, that it is influenced by things. Just as when things pass through a machine in an assembly line, and that machine depreciates as more and more things pass through it, the mind depreciates as more and more things are considered. This is generally biologically explained as 'ageing' for instance. The fact that one gets older means that one's mind gets older as well.

But, in this paper, we consider such a depreciation of the mind a different phenomenon, something unrelated to our question. Our question, rather, sees the mind as something more digital: as soon as one wakes up or is born, one has mind. As soon as dies or goes to sleep (let's ignore the phenomena of the unconscious and dreams here) one loses one's mind. Let us consider that the mind is not a machine that depreciates, in fact, let us say that the time period in which we observe this mind is minutes and not years, so that we do not even notice depreciation if it occurs. The mind, in our paper, does not depreciate, but, it is switched on as soon as we are alive and switched off as soon as we die. In short, what we mean by mind is that ability to keep on perceiving, no matter how old one is, to keep on being conscious, to keep on being mentally alive, so to speak. The problem is indeed heightened by the fact that the mind is digitalized. As any digital entity, it seems to work on its own whims, turning on and off at will, and does not, importantly, manifest a nuance to show that things indeed influence it, that is begins as something and then becomes something else. The mind, it seems, is too essential throughout, in that, it is mind at one point and not-mind at another point of time.

The nuanced question for this paper is whether things just pass through the mind, without influencing the mind at all? We do know that things pass through the mind, that things are what the mind is conscious of. But, does the mind stay the same, in that, does it stay as it is always when things pass through it? It seems, with recourse to the digital mind, that it stays the same until it isn't so, out of its own accord. It seems the mind ultimately changes, given the digital mind, out of an influence of itself upon itself. It self-destructs in spontaneity, it seems. So, we can conclude, firstly, that the mind indeed does not get influenced by other things, that things just pass through the mind without touching it. The mind is, in this scenario, a gap, or a hole, a void and an absence, which does not get effected and influenced by other things which pass through the hole. The ultimate mind, the super entity, the non-human mind, is therefore just an absence, a not there that allows the things of this world to exist as they do. (Additionally, this is simply the negation of the question of what the mind exists as and the bolstering of the question of what the mind exists for, what it exists to do.) It exists to influence other things, but, when confronted by whether things have influence upon it, we have to say no, since it is only an absence when encountered from the perspective of things. Sure, things may attempt to influence the mind, and this may be a fundamental nature of things, but all they ultimately do is pass through it. Indeed, we may apply the sociological concept of 'wasted lives' to things and declare them as 'wasted independent existences' because things are, in a sense, thoroughly dependent upon the mind, insofar as they exist just for the mind to have an influence upon them. This is the somewhat monistic viewpoint that we were thinking of at the beginning of the paper. So, the thing passes through the mind but does not press upon it.

This, however, is not our final answer, for there is a serious case for proper metaphysical duality as well. How then do things influence the mind? How do things press upon the mind? Let us first consider the nature of the mind dwelling upon the thing. It is my assertion here that we began our observation and investigation into this phenomena without addressing the crucial primary step regarding it. We immediately felt that the mind, upon thinking of the thing at all, has an influence upon the thing. However, what is the step before that? What is the mind thinking for when it thinks of the thing? Why does the mind think of that particular thing in the first place? It is my assertion here that, if we once again begin to detach the mind from the human mind located in the brain (something I believe here that monism is still guilty of), we can safely say that the mind is not just our mind, but it is the mind of everything, it is the mind of things. I do not mean it is the mind of that tree when one is thinking of that tree, but rather, it is the mind of all things in collection, it is the mind of a multiplicity of which the tree is a part. The totality of all things has an influence upon the mind. When the mind thinks of a tree, it is the tree which comes alive, it is the tree which has a vitality, not because the tree individually has influenced the mind, but because, it is the multiplicity which influences the mind in a sustained manner. The mind thinks of the tree on behalf of the multiplicity of things. It is because the mind thinks on behalf of the tree can we say that things do indeed influence the mind, indeed, all things altogether do so. It is for the tree to come alive, to become more vital, that the mind serves its duty to think of the tree.

We cannot say, the tree does not have a mind of its own, it indeed does have a mind of its own! The mind, the super-entity, is a mind of all things and for all things, precisely because it is also influenced by things. It is not an authoritarian and elite mind, it is a mind of things, a mind of the masses. The thing calls upon the mind to think not just of it but for it. But that is not to say that the mind does not just think of the thing either. It does both, of it and for it. In this way, the mind has both an independent existence and a dependent existence, and so do things. To end, we must say that there is no super-super entity encapsulating the mind-of-things and the things themselves, the external rim of this duality is the external most point of possible observation and serious consideration.