Constructs Are Inside and Outside Your Head

The above example is a very abstract way of looking at forces. Forces, in this sense, can abstractly be thought of as domains of influence. It can be thought of as the ability of one thing to cause a change in another thing. Regardless of whether the imagined ball in a person’s mind exerts an influence on what is referenced, there is a reference to that thing. There is a correlation between the thing you are thinking about and that thing because the thought about that thing references and has information about that thing regardless of whether that correlation facilitates any sort of influence or flow of information. A person can take any object and try to perceive what others thought about that object. If their perception is accurate, they will pick up thoughts people thought about that object even though those thoughts people thought about that thing did not influence it.

So, when a person thinks about a ball, the issue is not whether the construct exists, because the act of them thinking about a ball implies that it exists; rather, the issue is whether there is a relationship between the two in such a way there is a correlated change whether that be a change in the person or a change in the object. People tend to think of influence in a concrete sense; however, influence can be more abstract. Think of two separate, non-local things that have coordinated movements. I am speaking of this idea in the abstract and not as something related to any theory in Physics (such as entanglement). Say that when one moves, the other moves. This implies that there is a correlation between the two regarding coordination of the movements between them. If one moves as a result of the other moving, you can say that one caused a correlated and coordinated change in the other. The idea of the correlations between the two things being a concrete thing, like a substance, is intuitive; however, the idea of influence is more abstract in that what you have is merely how these things relate to each other where a change in one thing creates a change in another. For example, if one thing is “informed” of the other corresponding one’s state, it can change in correlation with that information. The influence comes from how one thing is correlated with another thing.

The idea of ethereal energies as being what facilitates psychic interactions is an intuitive approach to something counter-intuitive. Everyday intuition for people used to dealing with physical objects daily is to view what goes on inside of our minds as only being in our heads and being inert without some sort of concrete action. Those people would have tacit expectations that presuppose thoughts about opening a door or shifting some papers on a desk having to be carried out by physically opening a door or shifting the papers around with their hands. They tacitly expect something concrete that is like the physical objects and forces they interact with to carry out or complete an action. There is a tacit assumption that there is a divide between what is in their heads and what is outside in the world where the idea is that what is in their heads is inert. The idea of there being a mystical force or energy with properties very similar to what we encounter in the physical world every day is intuitive to these sorts of people; however, not necessary and somewhat inaccurate.

If someone were to walk over to you and said look at that thing over there, that is not very descriptive. Since they want you to look at something, you can reasonably think there is a thing that is at some location right now that someone wants you to look at. You can conclude there is some physical thing you are being directed to look at. Say they pointed or nodded towards a direction, you look, and you see they are referring to a bottle of their (my) favorite soda – root beer. So, we have a general place and time a person is pointing from which you can find a general physical object – like root beer. The domain of the root beer is typically where we interact with objects. We interact with things as bottles of soda sitting on tables in buildings that you can interact with. I am dealing with the computer to type, and I am typing this within the same domain as the root beer. In dealing with things on that domain, we are interacting with things on a “high-level” of generalities and abstractions. With the root beer in a bottle, you can think about it as describing that instance of soda in that bottle. How many more layers of ways to describe it are there?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ˆ Back To Top