Patients also believe that their disease can worsen with exertion but they are again misinterpretation ordinary bodily sensations (eg. delayed muscle soreness), and so they limit their activities and perpetuate their deconditioning.
(Good post.)
Generally, "interpretating" sensations is a complex concept.
Which sensations in my soul pop up I have no influence on:
If there are sensations in my eye, I may interpret them and say "This is a car." And logically this makes sense, as it may explain why such a perception can be false or true. But the sensation itself cannot be false or true, it is there or it is not there.
Now if we take pain, it is clear that pain cannot be false or true, it is there or it is not there. Pain is also not an object like a car, which would be the goal of the interpretation. Only an interpretation then, like "This is pain
in my foot." can be false or true.
So if there now comes a theory that - in fact - states that sensations are a result of mental acts, it may please explain of which basis this is, logically or at least empirically.
Logically, sensations are a basis of interpretations, not the result.
If you just claim there are these cases, it´s nothing than a claim, and by no means any empirical evidence. One may please give any examples where pain or other sensations have by any means shown to be a result of an interpretation.
This consideration relies on the normal sense of words, and even if some consequences may look strange it must be considered as agreeing with common sense. This is not the cases with the concept we are faced with, it is at least in a first approach against common sense, and asks therefore for detailed enough explanation (which is lacking).
This must not be confused with the interpretation of ones own abilities, which can be cultured. This is another subject, right?
