In a nutshell, EsSample says:
1) Minds only model, that’s all minds do
2) My mind models everthing – my world, other minds, my own self
3) My modelling is unconscious
4) I inhabit and wear one model so seamlessly that I call it myself
5) My internal model seeks affirmation – of itself
6) Discrepancies and resonances between models are most of what leak to conscious attention
The models of techniques for EsSample above is what’s in EsSample+.

This page outlines the core propositions of EsSample.

It outlines the model of EsSample. EsSample is not at the level of brain processes, but of the mind that emerges from them. EsSample is a useful characterisation of a how a mind operates. This is a space neglected in the public domain, in that there appear to be no disciplines and practices that address our perception and operation. It’s a blind spot.

At the levels below, brain and perception studies identify mediation and characterisation of aspects of a mind in operation.

Above it, psychology, behavioural sciences, etc identify patterns of a mind’s operation.

Emergent outcomes of minds have the lion’s share of attention. These are ‘what should be’ in philosophy, politics, etc. And ‘what is’ in social, cultural, historical, anthropological studies. And both ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’ in education, parenting, etc.

There are direct implications and predictions from EsSample, but these are less pertinent than its application. An example of a direct implication could be the prediction that modelling capabilities will be found in brains. But its principle purpose is in our practice, and this is outlined in EsSample+. EsSample should be able to provide a consistent and independent compass and reference in that practice.

Child pages present other descriptions and perspectives on this space. Some pages give alternative descriptions of EsSample, and others point to this unoccupied space that otherwise has no attention or content in the public domain.

Most items and ideas in these top pages have child pages with more detail.

There are a number of accepted propositions and models that characterise the animal brains from which the mind emerges. These are from science (neurone, brain), cognitive and other studies.

These define underlying and related drivers and shapers, such as primary affects (Panksepp) and default modes. Such drivers will also shape modelling. These drivers and shapers are selected for having most impact and relation to EsSample and EsSample+. The way they cradle and shape modelling is covered in child pages.

EsSample uses the term models partly to emphasise that they are separate constructs. Models are embodied representations that we hold of everything around us. They assemble to larger models, and divide to submodels. Models associated with identity are more intangible, and best visualised as an overall shape forming protrusions, dents, etc. Models associated with these constituent shapes are best visualised as 3d forms with vectors and pressures. These are close to the models we are most familiar, which are of external items. These external items are static or animated things which can be represented in terms of properties and actions.

Here’s a summary of the six foundations or propositions of EsSample.

1) Minds only model, that’s all minds do

The core proposal that modelling is the basic unit of mind activity. It defines a mind, whatever the origin and history and type of mind. This proposition is more a clarification and definition for the subsequent foundations.

I haven’t imagined what in theory a mind not based on modelling would be.

In practice, the definition appears to have no overlap or conflict with most theories and beliefs, and is consistent with empirical observation and common sense. On this planet, minds exist in a range of animals from us hominids to cetateans (dolphins), and back to those having the first neurones.

(I could also propose that modelling is true of bodies themselves, in the sense that they have to respond appropriately to environment and needs. This response can be viewed as a result of modelling their environment with the biological body.)

2) My mind models our physical world, other minds, my own self

After removing all belief systems, and observing the most common and predominant operations in our minds, modelling stands out. This is consistent with all we do consciously and unconsciously, and what we do socially and have done historically. It’s consistent with what we call intelligence, both in us and higher animals. It’s consistent with evolution, should you want to include that as well.

At one extreme, it is likely that there is nothing outside this paradigm, no inherent worth. There is only the physical universe you see out there and around here.

Most of us have belief systems that preclude this naked assertion. Our belief systems populate our universe with value and structure. The footprint of our mind, and specifically its independence, is inversely proportional to the extent to which it is populated with such structure and value. But even within that constraint, it is ok to consider that whatever independence your mind has in that universe, it is characterised by modelling, and from that the rest of EsSample.

So the theory is that treating us as modellers is a constructive proposal worth trying out.

I’ve referred to models of external items – static or animated things can be represented in terms of properties and actions. These are models of the purely external tangible world (physical, technical, engineering, processes, etc). These are mostly in the public domain because they are shared. They are often referred to as models, and are easily viewed as models. Let’s call these external models.

The models of interest to EsSample are the ones we use to operate in the world out there, the ones we have of each other in our relationships, and most importantly the one you have of yourself.

This last one is the starting point of EsSample+.

3) My modelling is unconscious

It is most useful to consider the operation of our mind as unconscious (in its traditional sense of the term), and that what we are aware of are leaks that pass thresholds and become available for attention.

Therefore, the process of modelling is unconscious, and the models are not directly accessible to attention.

(EsSample says the other aspects such as memory and language are similarly unconscious. There’s more in child pages.)

(In this respect consciousness is an aggregation and composite of these leaks. What we call consciousness is our assembly of these into a model.  Which ironically is also unconscious. There’s more in child pages.)

Bringing together these last two propositions, EsSample says the model you have of yourself is unconscious, and therefore not accessible directly.

That is to say, your knowledge of yourself is not knowable directly to you its owner.

(And to add insult to injury, EsSample is also saying that what we are aware of  – consciousness – is therefore something that is secondary and along for the ride.)

And worse, so to speak, is to come…

4) I identify so seamlessly with one model that I call it myself

One of the models we each have is of ourself. That’s to say it’s a representation of yourself. You inhabit and wear this model so seamlessly that you call it yourself, and experience it as yourself, identify it as yourself. Let’s call this our internal model.

Studies have identified physical models we have of ourself, and these are tangible enough to be manipulated by external actions. The same is true for models of the space around us – our peripersonal space. There’ll be other types of models. In a way, you can consider this internal model as a value model. EsSample’s wearing of our value self-model is the equivalent of Metzinger’s wearing of our sensory self-model.

So as a model it is unconscious, and so is the identity we derive from inhabiting the model.

Like other models, this one has components or submodels. I describe these in a child page.

5) my internal model seeks affirmation

Affirmation in the sense of affirming its existence, its workings and its perspective.

For your internal model to be affirmed, the affirmer must be something real and equivalent to the perspective of your internal model. And the affirmation must be of something within your internal model.

So generic agreement, support, kindness, etc tends not to affirm. Empathy, resonance and personal love will create space for affirmation, but a specific interaction must still exist to affirm.

(A form of affirmation is acknowledgement, and any acknowledgement is better than none, and partner abuse is acknowledgement.)

Movements and discrepancies and perspectives are things in the internal model (you) that are most susceptible to affirmation. These are movements and discrepancies and perspectives within or by your internal model (more in child pages). Accomplishments and challenges are examples of the first two, and acknowledging them specifically and personally and directly is a form of affirmation. Perspectives have the highest leverage within the internal model, because they are the result of the most choice and sight and direction. And resonating with what you have chosen is stronger affirmation than resonating with what you inherited.

Affirmations take weird and varied forms – as weird and varied as the perspectives and models we have on the world.

The passions we have, the expressions, the engagements – the expressing of these all also affirm because they exercise the models and wiring from which they originated, and which we have. But they are affirmations we notice on a good run. It is the difficult movement and discrepancies on challenging runs where affirmations count more.

The opposite of affirmation is invalidation, where that same set of attributes of yourself (your self model) are negated. The strongest form of negation is dismissal or deliberate neglect, or undeliberate blanking. A deliberate assault on those attributes is a form of recognition, and can have the perverse effect of affirmation instead of  invalidation.

6) Discrepancies and resonances between models are most of what leak to conscious attention

Resonances are agreements between models. Discrepancies are mismatches or incompatibilities between models.

Two models in agreement (or two perspectives in alignment) are more a green light that the subject has no issue, and subjects without issue don’t usually or directly lead to change. So they are worth savouring. (Like all leaks to conscious attention, they are transient so don’t count on them repeating or persisting).

Discrepancies between models are key because they are the first step to change.

A wrong answer to a black and white question (such as 2 + 2) is a discrepancy. Noticeable because the rules are structured and familiar, and because we are attuned to hear such discrepancies, and because it defaults to being expressed in the public domain and sharing.

Not getting your own way is another discrepancy. What you want is one model, and what you get is another. But these two models are usually not obvious or clear to the owner. The rules are unstructured and unpublished, and it doesn’t default to being expressed or being examined in the public domain. But nevertheless, the two are best considered as models.

As with much of EsSample, the idea of calling them discrepancies is less to focus on discrepancy as a subject or new entity itself, but more to enable us to speak of them, and use the image (of discrepancy) a means to resolve them. It is less to characterise and attend to the nature of a discrepancy or problem, or to make it a significant activity in itself. It is more to dissolve or resolve the discrepancy and move on. It is more a tool than a truth. In particular a tool to increase your choice in resolving stuff.

Discrepancies arise from models, and so both are unconscious. The stronger the source, the more they leak to conscious and attention.

Discrepancies between models are key sources of motivation and therefore leaks to conscious. The closer the discrepancy is to your internal model, the stronger it is a source. The greater the discrepancy, the stronger the source.

Where discrepancy resolution has no resistance or conflict, they are resolved unconsciously, do not leak to conscious and attention, and so are silent. I’ll guess that such resolutions are many and small, and in such circumstances,no one resolution has noticeable movement or pressure.

In having many models within each of our minds, the default is to have discrepancies.

There are four things your mind does which determine the nature and the extent of leaking to conscious. The first two bring a discrepancy to the attention of the unconscious, and the second two determine the its resolution.

6a) Discrepancy detection.

6b) Discrepancy intolerance.

6c) Discrepancy diagnosis or characterisation.

6d) Discrepancy resolution.

The leak to conscious depends on the amount of movement and pressure, and on the competing discrepancies. The competing discrepancies include material and existential survival. That is to say – in a war zone only the big discrepancies get attention.

A leak to attention can be a small something you notice, or an overwhelming tsunami of primary affects (emotion). The dissonance or discrepancy can be something not adding up, or an earthquake of conflict.

Without the capability and bandwidth to detect a discrepancy, nothing happens and that’s as far as you can apply EsSample. With such a disability, it takes an external viewer to point out discrepancies, and this becomes a different game and process.

Without discrepancy intolerance, conflicting models can co-exist. The co-existence of two conflicting models has an accepted name of ‘cognitive dissonance’. Not sensing your cognitive dissonance is also lacking discrepancy intolerance.

Without discrepancy diagnosis you are unable to characterise a way forward. Discrepancy intolerance without discrepancy diagnosis is more likely to leak as indeterminate angst.

Not having discrepancy resolution after completing diagnosis will feels like frustration and stress.

The models of techniques for applying EsSample are what’s in EsSample+.