September 1, 2016

The version of EsSample below was born in 2011, and documented in 2013. The essential model below remains intact and a proven foundation for the later focus of how that that essence is applied, and what it looks like after it is applied (EsSample+). A concurrent interest has been taking time and diary entries – EsSolution. EsSolution is how to fix the world, covering both solutions prescribed by EsSample+, and self-evident solutions in the real world.

The current state of the project is now re-organised to reflect this, and has the three avenues described in About EsSample.

1 EsSample      how we work,

2 EsSample+   how we make how we work work, and

3 EsSolution   where we steer the world from here on

So while the essential model below remains intact, my attempt to frame it in pseudo-scientific terms feels a bit daft and pompous now. When the content is in other pages, I’ll delete it.


November 17, 2013

(prompted to my first response to any blog, namely

This third version will aim to be (like all the previous editions) the essentials and skeleton of the manuscript to be published.

Since it contains the most mature abstract created to date (‘Nutshell of Essample, or abstract’), it is lodged (with EssampleCut2preDns.doc & EssampleDiary.doc) to UK copyright service (


Essample extends the direction implied by leading synthesisers and multidisciplinarians in the four mainstream domains of neuroscience, mind, practices in the ‘internal domain’ and practices in the external world. Essample extends, triangulates then synthesises from these directions, and from this proposes that animal minds operate as unconscious modellers. Human minds persist this fundamental, and add some capabilities. One of those models is a model that we call self, and is the ‘internal model’. The primary requirement of the internal model is affirmation. Corroboration with models (of the external world including other minds) with the internal model generates resonance. Discrepancies between these two generates dissonance. This internal model is real and consequential to the owner, but is not directly identifiable even by the owner. It is identified only by inference and triangulation using what little communication the unconscious has with the conscious. It is more easily identified by others observing the behaviour and interacting with the owner.

Essample therefore has two main contributions – the proposition of an identifiable entity as the internal model and the proposition of modelling as a central and universal process.

In all four areas Essample simplifies understanding and resolutions, and informs and gives direction.

In the context of the internal domain, Essample gives greater visibility of the values of the internal model, and a greater handle on acting on them. It also enables quantifiable descriptions of these values that are communicable and tangible, and facilitates assessment of our values in the public domain. In this regard Essample is a forerunner in its ability to identify and quantify properties of mind and minds and values.

Essample provides the predictive ability of a scientific model to the internal domain, and constructs a ‘way forward’ for the individual as much as it explains ‘the way behind’. In this significant and useful respect, it guides and informs personal internal discovery and development. It has descriptive language for most the personal discoveries and transformations revealed in hundreds of interviews in the public domain. Specifically and most importantly, Essample gives a context for a relationship between you and yourself, and clarifies factors and processes to progress both.

In the context of the external world, Essample is a theory consistent with scientific process in that it models accumulated information, and postulates future behaviour. It conforms to leading formal theories (and experimental findings) of neuroscience of mind. It also suggests re-interpretations of historical findings. It postulates properties of brain systems and behaviour that will be demonstrable when neuroscience understands integration within the brain. It is also consistent with experimental practices in education and lifeskills.

Besides these direct implications, there are a greater number of secondary conclusions and indirect effects for both the individual and at the level of society. These arise from both operating ground rules and from applying the primary conclusions above. They impact tangible and immediate material in the four domains.

The proposal arises from modelling itself. Specifically, it uses ‘functional black box’ modelling in the four named domains to triangulate to the proposition, and therefore to the two named contributions.

The view and method is “getting a handle and levers on how we work” in a comparable way that Darwin’s model of evolution “makes sense of biology”.  It provides the groundwork and framework for another Copernican revolution, but for the mind.

Foundations of Essample

Essample is fundamentally a series of statements, not unlike any other theory in scientific terminology. The scientific method distinguishes between assumptions and the deduction pertinent and central to the proposed theory. In this respect, the theory is a series of statements, in which the final statement (or statements) at the end are the additional or extended boundary of the overall theory.

All statements in Essample are proposition (assumptions) in the sense that they are neither proven by empirical evidence, nor accepted in mainstream disciplines.

The opening paragraph explicitly states two headline propositions. The presence of the unconscious internal model, and central process of modelling .

These are actually conclusions from a set of underlying propositions or statements for legs from Essample. To both clarify both where Essample is coming from, and to illustrate its foundation, the underlying propositions or statements or legs are:

1 The definition of a mind is a modeller. Minds Only Model, that’s all minds do.

2 We model our physical world, other minds, our own self

3 You identify so seamlessly with one model that you call it ‘yourself’. This is the ‘internal model’.

The first three above call directly upon the principal process of Essample (modelling) and directly contribute to proposing the entity called internal model.

In terms of the ‘scientific method’, the opening paragraphs were an abstract of Essample, and these statements are the body of the theory and proposal.

Secondary foundations from Essample – affirmation

The fourth underlying proposition or statement or leg is:

4 Affirmation of internal model is the primary requirement of the internal model.

The fourth statement was identified in the first paragraph, and here I place it as a foundational statement of Essample. The fourth statement arises from observing (modelling) human minds in the light of the first three statements.

In later paragraphs I explain the transition from hardwired (with respect to the brain) modelling to soft wired or blank slate modelling, in terms of evolution. A key requirement in both is reward.

Reward must also transition from hardwired mechanisms to soft wired. The reward transitions to something appropriate for the product of that soft wiring, which is the internal model. The appropriate reward is affirmation. In other words, the internal model must receive feedback that affirms its existence, because the hardwired rewards have been removed. Of course, all of this is relative in the sense that it is all founded upon neuronal mechanisms. So the key consideration is whether that reward is input directly to pleasure centres, or whether that reward is input to the subsistence that call upon pleasure centres.

Secondary foundation from Essample – relationship between you and yourself

A secondary headline proposal is the ‘relationship to self’. This refers to what happens when you don’t take every experience at face value, when you don’t experience your life with your nose against the windscreen. If you do experience that, then you have less reflection and space to have a view of yourself separate from that experience.

The origin of that reflection and space is discrepancy detection, diagnosis and intolerance. They force you to not take experiences at face value, to increase that space between your nose and the windscreen. This process is, like everything else, unconscious. What isn’t resolved in the unconscious will leak to conscious for attention. These leaks feel like perspective snippets, insights.

You will contribute to the resolution of these discrepancies by choosing actions, whether they be mind experiments or physical experiments.

Your sense of yourself is a remembered and aggregated history and journey of these discrepancies and your experiments and their resolutions.

Secondary foundation from Essample – what leaks to conscious

The next underlying propositions or statements or legs are:

5 Discrepancy detection.

6 Discrepancy diagnosis.

7 Discrepancy intolerance.

The ‘mind’s eye’ is the discrepancy detector that detects discrepancies between models. The relationship amounts to working with discrepancies between models, where the model under the spotlight is your internal model, and comparison is to the various models arriving from other places. These latter models are ‘external models’ that arise when we model the external world. They are in reality all models except the internal model, and so extend from the purely external world (physical, social etc) right up to the mental processes that border the internal model itself (values, judgements etc).

If the discrepancy detection is ‘conscious-enabled’ then the result is a ‘relationship to self’.

If the discrepancy detection is not ‘conscious-enabled’ then we have no way of knowing how much it contributed to the overall person (both animal and worthy / conscientious / role model). Essample gives the owner a means to do externally (on paper) what is done internally (in model comparing) in brains where it is conscious enabled. Essample provides the framework to interpret historical external manifestation, expects management of that external behaviour on the basis of modelling, and gives permission for other minds to assist. This is what minds with conscious enabled discrepancy detection do anyway.

The extent to which discrepancy detection is conscious enabled varies in brains (human minds) to the same degree as any other physical feature. In addition, the extent to which we pay attention to it varies according to a sum of our discrepancy intolerance (equally diverse in human minds) and our training (which is minimal and incidental to domains that do include it such as lifeskills, philosophy, morality).

Observations and feelings:

The way behind, explaining the past

Essample is an outcome from black box modelling.

Little empirical evidence has been sought or collected to directly argue for it as an objective theory, so it cannot therefore be easily demonstrated in a way comparable to the proposition of evolution. It should lead to propositions in the scientific domain.

The strongest connection to the three strands of evolution is the one of evolutionary selection. We can propose that there will be selection for the extent to which an organism can appropriately respond to their environment. Essample proposes that the mechanism of generating response is representative modelling of the environment, from which the organism can respond. This model can be mediated by chemistry, physiology or behaviour. The response can be mediated by the same three. Essample focuses on human minds with the environment being mostly embodied brain systems. It focuses less on the responding to the the physical environment. Brain systems are included in the environment because the mind’s experience of the outside world is from these brain systems, and some of them mediate senses of the external environment.

Modelling therefore employs biological systems in responding to the environment. Equally, these biological systems mediate the response to the environment. Essample extends this mediation of modelling and response to the mind.

Co-opting biological systems.

Prior to the development of distinct minds, biological systems within an organism responded to the environment. This response has already been identified as chemical, physiological or behavioural.

The introduction and growth of mind is another system to model and respond to the environment. The mind will interact with these pre-existing biological systems.

Essample proposes that these pre-existing standalone biological systems within the organism are co-opted by the growth of mind as a mechanism for responding to the environment. This co-opting can be considered integration.

The two main contributions of Essample are the entity of the internal model and the processing of modelling, and both co-opt and co-evolve with biological systems.

Models mediated by chemistry and biological systems are unlikely to be able to model complex systems. They will be very limited in capability of modelling future behaviour of the external environment. The addition of mind enables this capability.

From the first contribution, Essample proposes that the mind is mutually embodied within primary processes proposed in affective neuroscience. Seven primary processes are identified by Panksepp. The interaction centres around the internal model.

From the second contribution, Essample says that evolution selects for modelling capability, thereby co-opting and co-evolving with systems that abstract, represent and remember experiences of both the external world directly, and the internal world of models. The main as yet unidentified capability is building models and representations. Other identifiable supporting systems include memory and language.

Essample considers all other systems as secondary, including memory and language.

Feelings are an example what you consider a primary part of you. Essample (and affective neuroscience) considers them as a secondary process from the unconscious entity. Feelings are secondary in that they arise from primary affective processes that are driven by the unconscious of which the internal model is the principle driver.

To illustrate the inverted way we need to consider modelling, we know that mainstream parlance would automatically consider logic and reason as part of modelling. This is false on two accounts. Firstly that what we call logic and reason is a only surfacing of mental sensations from the unconscious. The sensations are not even driven from the conscious. An appropriate analogy will be the surface of a pond representing the boundary between conscious ‘above’ and the unconscious ‘below’. A fish rises to the surface in a line. We conclude the line of circles of ripples are our conscious doing reasoning. But the reality is that the modelling fish in the unconscious is not detectable to the conscious. Since mainstream discourse does not yet triangulate to the unconscious modelling, and uses only the parlance of conscious, we unavoidably and automatically interpret the circles as being our conscious reasoning. Secondly that the modelling undertaken in the unconscious employs a paradigm very different from conventional reason and logic.

Essample introduces the internal model as a centre around which biological systems are co-opted and adapted to support that centre.

The impact of this introduction on analysis from an evolutionary perspective enables a timeline in evolutionary history in which to consider significant components such as language, consciousness, etc.

The impact of this introduction on analysis from a functional perspective enables a more comprehensible set of dependencies.

In both of these perspectives, the addition of capabilities such as memory, language, consciousness, etc are considered for their functional interdependencies and dependencies on the central entity. For example, memory supplies inputs to modelling from previous iterations. Language provides a means of labelling segmented parts of models into the chunks. The chunks are offloadable to and recallable from memory. The label is a passive attribute of the chunk. Consciousness enables this park and recall, by both enabling greater resource (attention) on modelling, but also enabling greater resource (more attention) on memorising.

Language also operates mostly in the unconscious. Like the previous analogy of a fish rising, the labels in language are triggers for interchange between the conscious and unconscious. The triggers will contain the memory of the essentials of a part of model, and have a label to enable reference. Language is a bolt-on, and therefore secondary, process enhancing modelling. Whether the need to communicate (above non-verbal gestures) was a greater selection pressure than enhancing modelling is less relevant than the fact that it had to co-opt modelling in order to develop at all.

In addition, considering functional dependencies simplifies understanding of the cooperation and coexistence of these subsystems. By introducing these components as contributing functions a central entity, it also reduces the mystery and mystique arising when considering any one of these capabilities by themselves.

In raising the importance of functionality of a component, we can inform research into the mediation of these capabilities.

In addition, considering the functions of each capability, we can apply thought experiments to further uniform our understanding. For example, we can envisage a mind with 100 times the intelligence (modelling capability) but without each of these components (language, memory, consciousness, etc).

The capability to model starts with the 3-D vector model substrate, and makes use of the equivalences. In other words, the 3-D model is extracted from one situation and external situation, and applied it to another.

It provides reason to consider a unified entity in which it is an evolutionary advantage for the subsystems within the organism to remain (or become) unconscious, including where there is opportunity to be reconfigured as conscious. Studies demonstrate diverse and varied processes involved in completing conscious activities that would, if they were conscious, interfere with experience of a seamless conscious whole entity.

This applies not only to information sourced from the external world via the sensory subsystems, but also information generated by those same subsystems. Information generated by those subsystems occurs when the mind rehearses or mimics actions by itself (replaying a past action or projecting a future action). Information generated by those subsystems can be considered part of the environment to a central entity such as a mind.

(Bolt-ons are language and consciousness.  —- 2010-06-20 Integrating MOM and values results in us as ‘value machines’. Essample states that consciousness is a bolt on addition, like language, that provides externalisation and feedback to the models we operate by.)


There appears to be no precedent visible on the web for Essample, nor the overall shift in focus that it presents. Most projections that are equally far-reaching are based more on belief than empirical evidence, and most near-term projections are limited to the immediacy of empirical evidence.

It seems a small step from the projections of the leading synthesisers and multidisciplinarians to Essample itself.

Essample redirects focus for answers and solutions towards the unconscious internal model in particular, and unconscious supporting mechanisms in general.

This central focus of the proposal inverts conventional approaches to mind such that the unconscious is always the first consideration. The completeness of this inversion is pivotal, even if it is at risk of being a self fulfilling nonobservance. From this pivotal inversion come the widespread secondary implications and applications.

This redirection changes the value and usefulness of working in the more favoured topics such as consciousness, language, beliefs, morality, intelligence, feelings, intuition, life skills, relationships and other mysteries. It reduces the distraction that these topics present in addressing questions.

This relegation of favoured topics will present a challenge in gaining acceptability of Essample in the public domain.

Models are central to Essample. An implicit property of a model is that it characterises a subject, represents key features, and makes predictions. Enforcing this is central to Essample. Characterisations and pattern descriptions alone are of little use, and models need to make projections that can be applied and proved.

By its own rules, Essample demanded a model that operated successfully at the common ground of the four domains. It also demanded a model that also works successfully in important topical subjects. Applying the model to these subjects delivers yet more secondary implications and applications. Essample reconfigures the relation of these subjects to the unconscious internal model. This reconfiguration simplifies understanding of these topics, and should contribute to the scientific model of the subjects.

Models inherit the physical properties of our past, and are mostly entities having vector, mass and momentum in a three-dimensional medium. It is in inherent and universally accepted that models of the external Newtonian world conform to these characteristics. Essample proposes that the unconscious internal model also conform to these characteristics.

Capabilities outside these dimensions, such as mathematics, are not explained. Proposing this interpretation is therefore not all inclusive. This is compatible with the purpose of Essample needing to address equally the backward and short term explaining, and the forward solutioning.

The internal model can be considered a set of values. Values can be considered entities or objects that attract attention. That attention is by definition in the majority unconscious. Values can be considered the phenotype on which evolutionary selection applies. The requirement of a value is to trigger behaviour that contributes to evolutionary survival and success.

The form and phenotype of a value is the outcome of a balance between ancient requirements of behaviour, and new requirements of modelling. These two forms of requirements reflect the transition from hardwired (chemical and neuronal) modelling to soft wired (representations) during the evolution of animal minds.

A precise definition or explanation of the need for attention is not complete within Essample. Essample’s response to attention includes today’s practices and therapies, varying from acceptance to the mediation.

It is useful to consider some as simply faulty wiring. Examples of holistic faulty wiring include disorders such as psychopathy. Localised faulty wiring may apply to specific shapes, colours etc.

It is most useful to consider the need for attention as the result of dissonance. Dissonance arises from a discrepancy that is noticed between two models. (As an aside, Essample recognises discrepancies that are not noticed, and so do not attract attention. To be noticed, the two models must first be exercised to effect an outcome, and the exercise must be capable of receiving feedback and detecting the discrepancy).

Discrepancies are resolved by changing either (or both) of the models. Both Essample and today’s therapeutic practices resolve dissonances by practising both models and having the subject experience both in order to move on to changing either (or both) the models.


Essample provides the means of being both ruthless and material in applying its methods, and forgiving and immaterial in outcome. This refers to the modelling process being explicitly neutral in evaluating entities that are core to any person’s value system under consideration, yet simultaneously delivering the means of being entirely accepting of those entities.

Essample itself is not partisan in the subject under study. Essample is a neutral tool and can be considered a mirror.

Another significant implication and application is on the user of Essample himself or herself. Up to this point of attention has been applying Essample to the external world. Redirecting the use of Essample from the external world to the internal world of your own model has as much impact internally as it does externally to subject under study. Applying Essample has the peculiar but predictable result of reorienting the user. Predictable because the orientation of Essample changes evaluation. Peculiar because the actor experiences changes in his or her evaluating process, and the evaluation of self.

Another significant implication and application of minds applying Essample is to the material world. In re-evaluating our interaction with the physical external world in terms of modelling, our unspoken goal is to model that interaction. (This is the same goal as evolution). This separates and distinguishes the model itself from experience of that relationship. This separation enables the owner to understand (the model) better, and separately focus on the experience more.

The modelling discipline of Essample is educational and academic discipline in itself. It does not need acceptance of its central tenets (unconscious and the internal model). It can therefore be added to the curriculum on its own merits.

Some religions have a prerequisite to place an entity (or entities) above all else, and therefore above minds as modellers. Except in such religions, Essample works in spaces of religions. Essample asks what model is, and what handles are available in a model. Except where such modelling conflicts with or impacts with a religions central tenets, Essample delivers benefits. In the context of religions, spaces either free to model worries occupied by beliefs that deny freedom to model.

Pre-requisites for modelling include having a context, and having a limited set of features that have a relationship. The ability to ‘black box model’ requires characterisation of these features only in that context.

The human species succeeded in evolution as a social group (as opposed to individuals). Culture and social groups by their very definition of requiring an in-group, do not espouse the ability to perceive without prejudice. As human minds move from the shadow of this evolutionary dependency, they are therefore liberated from this prejudice, and free to model without prejudice. This freedom has adopted the external world (material based modelling) as an alternative, most recently through the scientific method. This adoption amounts to the boundary of self moving inwards to exclude the external world. Essample and modelling requires this boundary to move further inwards to include much of what we call self.

Black box modelling in current culture is approved in the scientific method and evidence based regulation. There is significant disapproval of black box modelling in the most social norms such as morality, death, etc. In particular where outcomes from such modelling impact their identities. At best, culture is agnostic on black box modelling has a skill and as a tool.

As a result, the acknowledgement and support of black box modelling is essential for Essample. Black box modelling of a subject in a context requires the ability to exclude foreign characterisations.

Introducing foreign characterisations contaminates and breaks the model. Foreign characterisations include prejudices and derivatives from other contexts. Prejudices include beliefs, habits, and any influence that distorts. Derivatives from other contexts refers to models and their implications from other contexts, even if those were genuine and successful.


One of the domains that Essample has to be consistent with is that of the behaviour of minds themselves. While science and material knowledge contribute to deducing Essample, they cannot be a prerequisite. Essample could have been deduced, and probably was, in previous cultures. A prerequisite of discovering Essample is the freedom to model (in terms of functionality and black box), and therefore freedom from belief. The freedom to model depends on the space left unoccupied by a culture’s beliefs. In this respect, most cultures of previous ages were not conducive to functional black box modelling.


The current maturity and completeness of Essample is rudimentary, and requires greater minds and intelligences to develop. Development includes realising the many implications and conclusions arising from its current state and maturity. It is also unsubstantiated, and requires more informed minds to substantiate from existing studies, and perhaps propose additional studies.