Leg#1) Minds Only Model, that’s all minds do

Leg#1) Minds Only Model, the core proposal that modelling is the most basic and only currency of mind activity. It is the definition of a mind, whatever the origin and history and type of mind. This proposition is essentially indifferent to theory and belief, and consistent with empirical observation. Minds exist in a range of animals from ourselves to cetateans (dolphins) to hominids and to primates.


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.


(what various views support this?)


The point is that it is the common denominator.

There is nothing outside this paradigm, no inherent worth. There is only the physical universe you see out there and around here.



Leg#2) We model our physical world, other minds, our own self

Leg#2) That’s all we do – we only model. Everything. That is the starting point for everything you do in the world out there. Only model. Let’s agree that models of the purely external physical world (physical, technical, engineering, scientific, etc) are more easily viewed as models, are mostly conscious, are mostly academic. As such, they are not relevant to EsSample, so let’s set them aside. The remaining subset of models are of interest here. These models include the ones we use to operate in the world out there (let’s call these external models), the ones we have of each other, and the one you formulate of your own self.


(what various views support this?) Theory of mind. Gazzaniga. Rama.


The 1st element is MOM. Minds only Model. All we do is mental modelling. Most of our models are unconscious and most of the process of modelling is unconscious. This modelling activity is the raw process and capability forged by behavioural evolution, present in both avians and mammals, and this effectively proportional to intelligence. Simply being aware of this underlying element makes a difference, because it focuses on the modelling process and opens the separation of the model from the mind (this stops the mind identifying as a model). Being an identifiable third-party deliverable model (such as engineering, animals etc), and it redirects attention from other forums and mediums where a person normally exercises their journey in life, in the usual manner of positioning at worst, expression at best. Models not created in the mind for a mind, such as puzzles, engineering, politics, don’t need the next 2 elements (the next 2 paragraphs).


Leg#3) All your modelling is unconscious to you

It is most effective to consider the mind as unconscious (in its traditional sense of the term), with superficial and small characteristics delivering the small expression that we call consciousness. It’s predominant state is therefore not known to its owner, and what we are aware of is something that is along for the ride.



Leg#4) You identify so seamlessly with one model you call it yourself

(internal model)

Leg#4) The model that you formulate of your own self is one that you identify so seamlessly with that you call it your mind, you call it yourself. The reason that it is significant and important here is that it is the one most hidden from us. It is created most unconsciously, and operated mostly unconsciously. It is also most impacted by the mental equipment (mostly unconscious) you have to create and maintain it, and most impacted by the models the external world fed to it (mostly unconscious).

As an aside, the further from a purely external physical model, the more unconscious they are.


Evolution built this internal model to fill the volume (of mental process capability) created by the increased neurological processing. The internal model has always inhabited the centre between the many processes that do get noticed and studied. That centre is the unstudied interstices (a soft network, a blank slate) between the conventional pillars/skeleton of behaviour drivers, such as the Panksepp 7.

Before this capability, the self responded with just the pillars. As the blank slate took over the innate responses, and built up the modelling, so the accretia that the internal model accreated became more like the items than the underlying internal model


The above 3 legs need not inherently have issues or generate emotion. EsSample places the leg#4 below as a simple but effective model of our natural end game. The exercise of this natural end game results in sufficient all-round consistent positive reward in a manner consistent with a correct model.

The above 3 legs also do not prescribe remedies. True that merely knowing them, or having them explained, may be sufficient to trigger remedial actions, but they are essentially passive in nature.


Perhaps more imprinted by the first ‘take’ on the nearest model that the infiltrated wiring would let them resonate with.


I’ve no idea the origin of the shape of the internal model. There’s a self-evident requirement that a response or reaction is completed in early years, and forms the basis of the shape and/or rule engine for the models tale on. I assume the size of the internal is related to that snapshot, although that snapshot is itself a response to the stimuli of the world around it. The shape of this internal model is the outcome of ‘Propensity to be shaped, and to need shaping ‘.

The shape of the affirmation body reflects the peaks of the internal model.

Troughs in the affirmation model are the most negative outcome of discrepancies, specifically where the external model counters the internal model to the exten that the player is ‘offended’. These belong more in the Leg#4 Discrepancies.


Evolutionary origin and equipping

Evolution demands seamlessness, which in this analogy means no space between reality and that shape or capability. This seamlessness (or layer between the external surface and the internal shape) gives little space for leverage and space to experiment with alternate views, and therefore little space for change. The more seamless this experience is, the closer the mind’s eyes to the windscreen of a car.

Perhaps this same seamlessness precludes visibility of these shapes, and generally be complete inability of individuals and academic disciplines to perceive this worldview I present. Almost like an elephant in the room. Not even patterns in the resulting shapes of models are described, or even a subject of modelling.


Gazzaniga and Rama’s presentations of the integration to a whole.


Leg#5) Affirmation of internal model.

Everyone seeks affirmation, which by definition means themselves as identified with their internal model.

Resonance happens when something in the outside has a thread that agrees with that internal model (occasionally and maybe just strokes the wiring). If the internal model is entirely self, then the resonance is a stroke on themselves and that ego. If the internal model is entirely non-self and of how the world actually works, then the resonance is a recognising a critical lever in making the world work.

Leg#5) Affirmation. Everyone seeking resonance delivered from the other persons most essential core to ours, and in the most direct avenue. Most of us have affirmation from other minds as the most sustaining food. While some of us feed off this resonance from another core, others resonate with something in the external world, something else in autism, what else? Recreating each other is the unautistics greatest affirmation (and is the nearest to direct communion). Emotional intelligence is the term for successfully negotiating and acting in this medium.


The shape of this affirmation music score is entirely the outcome of the shape of the legs above: internal model.

The shape of the affirmation body reflects the peaks of the internal model.

Troughs in the affirmation model are the most negative outcome of discrepancies, specifically where the external model counters the internal model to the exten that the player is ‘offended’. These belong more in the Leg#4 Discrepancies.





The way this comes about is that you will operate in the medium you recognise, and will trade most profitably when you operate in the currency of greatest value to you.

You will seek to trade in what is most valuable to you, what your resonate with most. Again and repeatedly, this is mostly unconscious.

(There is the perverse notion that it is possible that the more conscious it is, the more likely and more profound the risk is that it will be corrupted by distortions and misinterpretations in the conscious. I guess the extent and probability of distortion is directly proportional to the mismatching tendency (of the conscious part of the mind) compared to the unconscious. The model being that if the unconscious mismatches as badly, then it won’t make much difference how much is unconscious because the result wil be as bad. Of course, if the unconscious (instinct) is better than the conscious, then the less conscious the better. If it is the other way round, then the more conscious, the better. This latter scenario applies where the training is effective, or the unconscious is wired disadvantageously and the conscious knows the management regime (e.g. medication and drugs).)

So to continue…

So you’ll deal in the stuff that gives you the most reward. Most of us have as central the same stuff that we have in the walkthroughs on “human life is sacrosanct” and “how much could you lose without losing your identity” – other like entities or minds that resonate what is valuable to us.

Frankly, the degree of our sophistication in this area leads me to believe an AI could ingratiate itself into our friendship circles. While we will know unconsciously that something is not right, we will not be trained to be aware of this, nor culturally aware of what that is. Which means we’ll complain and discriminate like normal people, misinterpret this as knowing an AI is amongst us, but not know why we complain and dislike.

It is only the capability to recreate where another is that makes the grade, and I fear that I’d respond to an AI programmed for discrepancy resolution as I would an aware mind. But hey, I don’t suppose I’d be offended. The question at that stage would be “did they do the job? And if so, who cares where they came from?”


The explanation of this seeking affirmation is


Failure to achieve this affirmation is the principal source of negative emotion in our lives. EsSample came about to explain and act against the failure to achieve this affirmation.

The next 3 legs in EsSample explain and act against blocks and impediments to achieving this affirmation.


The underlying motivation of every movement towards enlightenment is to avoid hurt, to not take the hit on a tussle.

The underlying motivation of every movement towards enlightenment is to obtain strokes that affirm me (me inside, and not me body or me form).




So the next 3 legs of EsSample below are the underlying cause of symptoms generating most of the emotion experienced, principally negative emotion. They do this because they are the area where the blocks and conflict reside.

The sequence or order reflects their position in the ‘battlements’ or ramparts. What I mean by this is that if leg#5 does not resolve the discrepancy experienced (or deduced, etc), then the next leg is invoked. If this next leg does not resolve the discrepancy, then the subsequent leg occurs.



Motivation from Models (and wiring)



The framework:

– EsSample layers. Are these hierarchical properties, or are they descriptive levels? Hierarchical says the next leg is entirely characterised and determined by the profile of the level above. Descriptive, non-prescriptive (networked?) levels do not, and may have elements operating contrary to the level above. They operate by association whose tightness is commensurate with cause (as in the hierarchical aspect)


Leg#6) Resolving discrepancies

Discrepancies of relevance here (‘EsSample discrepancies’) exist only between our internal model the external model facing off (matching, relevant, etc) to that internal model.

Let’s work out the relationship, or rather the process and ingredients.

Discrepancy intolerance implies detection and no resolution.

Discrepancy detection implies intolerance of no resolution.

(Discrepancy diagnosis implies active participation to achieve resolution. It’s not on the critical path, so let’s shelve it to the end of discrepancies.)

Resolution is not likely to have impact on detection and intolerance, other than perhaps informing the subject of a pattern for future tactics.

So what’s the precedence between intolerance and detection. Both can be unconscious, as can be the resolution. Which comes first, or which depends more on the other?

At the moment, they feel like two sides of the same process – you have to detect before intolerance becomes relevant, and detection is relevant only if you are intolerant of discrepancies.


The active participation (in discrepancy diagnosis) is the other thread and dimensions of Legs – namely what exercises and modelling assists?


The shape of the discrepancy body is entirely the outcome of the shape of the legs above: external model, internal model.

The shape of the discrepancy body can be considered like the resulting overlap in a Venn diagram, and probably arises in the same manner.


The underpinning (mediation) is innate – at a higher level its symptom or phenotype is puzzle resolution. At a low level its symptom or phenotype is Panksepp’s Seeking.


Cognitive dissonance is the mainstream word. That it is as uncomfortable as hunger to hold conflicting models in same space, especially when it impacts self-belief. Motivational state produced by inconsistencies between simultaneously held cognitions or between a cognition and behaviour; e.g., smoking enjoyment and believing smoking is harmful are dissonant


Dissatisfaction arises from discrepancies between models, in particular the internal model of ourselves, and the models of the world out there. It is the presence of discrepancies and the inherent need to resolve that is the bulk of energisation and motivation. The portion of overall motivation that can be attributed to discrepancies is directly proportional to be extent of modelling as a basis of behaviour. The symptoms of the discrepancies are the common negative emotions of frustration, anger, impatience, unhappiness etc. The outcomes of resolution are closure and fulfilment, where closure means the issue no longer exists, and fulfilment means the impediment and blockage is removed. Simply being aware of models and discrepancies makes a difference, if only to models (such as other persons, theory of mind etc) where the 3rd and last ever element does not have influence.


Discrepancy detection.

Leg#6) Discrepancy detection. If we detect the discrepancy between our internal model the appropriate external model, and have no issues in adjusting the appropriate model, then the mere detection is enough for us to adjust the appropriate model appropriately, and resolve the discrepancy. Remember that most of these modelling, and discrepancy detection, is unconscious. Resolving it (without conscious attention) means that we have resulted unconsciously, and need not invoke the next leg.


Here’s one of several models to explain the principal block an impediment. This explanation is one of probably many that explain adequately. You could argue that it should be a leg in itself within EsSample. It is not a leg because EsSample contains only legs necessary to progress. In addition, having it as a leg invites argument about the best explanation. Here’s the explanation.

Let’s say behaviour is driven by nervous tissue. This nervous tissue is either hardwired and pre-programmed (primitive mammals), or is available to model with, starting from a ‘blank slate’ (the ‘higher’ the mammal, the more is available). Issues, and therefore emotion, begin where behaviour from pre-programmed wiring overlaps that from blank slate wiring. Where the pre-programmed behaviour interferes with the behaviour from straightforward modelling. You could say that issues arise when the above 3 processes hit their limit, and are frustrated by the constraints imposed by hardwired behaviour. The amount of frustration (expressed as negative emotion) is proportional to the degree of constraint. As an aside, positive emotion arises when passing beyond those constraints.

The above description is sufficient for you to operate with EsSample. There is no need to understand or have any alternative models. The above model works, and that is enough. Just in case you’re interested, there are many aspects of interest and of use in specific and minor aspects of EsSample or any discipline attempting to model mental behaviour. For instance, I wonder what a model to adopt to explain the timing and extent of the initial balance between the above 2 types of behaviour. We can see that every child is different, but we can also see that they have 2 start that difference between the ages of 0 and let’s say 5. Phrased in a way commensurate with EsSample operation, my unconscious resonates with the Montessori model off an unconscious imprinting between those 2 ages. That imprinting, like everything else about our minds, is probably mostly genetic (mostly inherited, partly random), partly circumstantial. I use the word ‘circumstantial’ because the traditional use the word ‘environmental’ does not acknowledge that our response to the actual environment is mostly genetic (mostly inherited, partly random), and this puts it in the 1st category anyway. So I prefer the word circumstantial to demonstrate the unpredictability of how we respond a particular set of circumstances, and there is the circumstantial events in our environment are more significant than the environment itself. Anyway, this explanation demonstrates that even a significant model (explaining our historical journey to where we are now) has no relevance to the way forward for the modelling mind that you are now).





Discrepancy diagnosis.

Leg#6) Discrepancy diagnosis. If we have been unable to resolve the discrepancy unconsciously in the previous leg, then we have to undertake some more conscious activity to reveal more of the discrepancy. This conscious activity undertakes exercises that enabled the unconscious to experience the discrepancy, and then undertake the discrepancy resolution undertaken in the previous leg. There are many tricks and techniques in this diagnosis. Most of the life skills, wisdom, philosophy etc operate in this leg, in that they are conscious activity is designed to identify or become aware of ‘truths’. We resonate with these ‘truths’ because they do indeed point us to bridges between where we think we are and where we think we ought to be. Most of EsSample’s favoured aphorisms reside here.

Note that having a model of ourselves that differs from reality (external model) is not an issue if there are no mental consequences. I specify ‘mental consequences’ because physical consequences alone may not be an issue. For example, you may have an internal model (of yourself) being able to walk through walls, and an external model (reality model) that does not. The physical consequence of the discrepancy is the pain you experience in the collision. If the pain and inability to walk through walls is not a mental issue for you, then there is no consequence. Without a consequence you are not motivated to resolve the discrepancy. If however you experience either the inability to walk through walls or the pain as an emotive issue, then there are mental consequences, and you have motivation to resolve, and the next legs of EsSample are relevant.

Note that until this point, there are still no significant negative emotive outcomes from discrepancies between models. Even having the motivation to consciously resolve a discrepancy is not significant. After all, we undertake such discrepancy diagnosis in jigsaw puzzles and crosswords.


Discrepancy intolerance.

Leg#7) Discrepancy intolerance. It’s at this point that discrepancies between the internal and external models become an issue. The term issue means a negative mental consequence (usually emotional, but it may be physiological such as epilepsy). Referring to the previous paragraph, the negative consequence may be the physical pain or the frustration and anger at being denied walking through the wall. But in reality, the majority of negative emotion arises from an unconscious intolerance of discrepancy. This intolerance manifests itself as irritation, stress, impatience, unease etc. This is a specific leg within EsSample of the criteria that EsSample sets for it’s own existence and use. The criteria for being a leg is that it is a genuine barrier or milestone that we encounter in our modelling. Being a barrier, it is like a rampart that you have to make an effort to mount, and which pushes you back to legs previously described in this manuscript. In other words, if you are unwilling to tolerate the discrepancy, then you will want to stay and work in the area of the previous leg.

So obviously, this leg is where all the negative emotion arises. The manifestation of negative emotion takes as many forms as there are misinterpretations of models. In layman’s terms, the manifestation of negative emotion is varied as there are interpretations of events and experiences. There are no rules to interpret manifestations and identify the nature and location of the discrepancies. If it was that simple or clear, then you would probably have already interpreted correctly – heck, you would probably not be in this situation are finding it intolerable, and would have resolved it while you still experienced a puzzle and not an issue.


Because they are the only models, and the manifestations are within you yourself and are immediately accessible, there should be plenty of opportunity to investigate. On this item of working with models, there is skill, dexterity and sensitivity that you develop when working with mental models, especially mental models that you care for and whose discrepancies give you issues.

These models that you operate with, the internal model of yourself and the external model in that same area, are just models. You probably deal with modelling in other parts of your life, and resolve discrepancies quite capably in those other areas. The difference is that these models cause you issues because you are involved with them, and because your involvement and the models are mostly unconscious. The skill, dexterity and sensitivity (that you need and will develop) arise more readily when remembering to work with them as models rather than as your identity or yourself. Even your most treasured value (around which you are most upset) is still just a model. Even if EsSample was not true and models are fictitious, and you were genuinely and only yourself, it is still more efficacious and productive to treat yourself as a model.

So just consider for a moment these 2 competing models, between which there are differences which we call discrepancies. What are the obvious actions for you to take on the discrepancies, or for the models to take for themselves? The obvious answer is that there are effectively only 4 choices. Your internal model (or rather the feature that is in conflict) will either push the external model, or pull the external model. Or the external model will push your internal model or pull your internal model. These 4 choices equate respectively to you over ruling the external model, complaining about the external world, complaining about yourself, trying to change yourself. There is no inherent right answer, or right choice, between these 4 resolutions. Guidance on the appropriate action comes from being honest and aware of what works for you. Honesty and awareness comes from careful and diligent application to the problem at hand. Careful and diligent application to the problem at hand usually requires you to be not partisan to the way forward, not to bring beliefs to the problem, to be empirical and evidence based on your use of the information you obtain, and at all times to listen for feedback from yourself.

Note that the more intolerant the response to the discrepancy, the stronger the emotion will be. As you can guess, an intolerance stronger than the above is anger, rage, hate, etc. Given that the owner has already demonstrated inability to diagnose his/her own models, it is likely that such stronger emotions acts on the nearest punishable object, and this is usually unrelated to the models or to the discrepancy, and is as likely to be an object dear to the owner.

Note that a less intolerant response to a discrepancy is an uncomfortable tolerance. Practically, this equates to 2 sensations – a push and a pull. The push equates to resistance (irritation), and pull equates to a yearning or hoping (which I equate to obfuscation, or not wanting to get to grips with the issue). As you can expect, neither of these are decisive in resolving the discrepancy. Such a less intolerant response belongs to the previous leg#6 of EsSample, because it is more the lesser emotion associated with puzzles and crossword resolution.



Leg#8) The remaining motivations.

Leg#8) The remaining motivations.


The below is probably much replaced with Panksepp’s contributions.


To continue the story, everything so far can be entirely unconscious, although by definition as human minds, we are likely to be aware of some aspects at some depth.

In the context of EsSample, we are less aware of modelling (the 1st 3 legs of EsSample) than we are of the outcome of that modelling (the next 3 legs of EsSample).

I guess EsSample agrees, and says that it is the discrepancies in modelling that are most emotive, even if we are not aware of the sensation, and even if we are not aware of the origin. While we may not be aware of the models or the discrepancies, we are more aware of the outcome and emotions arising from them.

So EsSample says that discrepancy detection, diagnosis and intolerance can be entirely unconscious, and yet still be the principal source of behaviour and motivation.


To complete the picture of motivation, let’s say the 4th area is the rest of the motivation of that person. For the purpose of this discussion, it is identical to the motivation from models. It still comes entirely from the inside, and is still all just responses to the stuff perceived to be outside yourself. Some of it comes from models, some from hard-wiring, some habitual (whose origin is ultimately the sources of models and hard-wiring). Perhaps EsSample should disqualify habitual behaviour, as by definition it engenders no emotion, and the whole substance and reality recognised by EsSample is that of value, and motivation arising from that value. Anyway, and for moment, I will include it, as the hindrance and frustration of such habitual behaviour does actually engender emotion.

EsSample’s response to this motivation also remains the same. The question is still how much your identity is the same substance as the models or the wiring. So EsSample asks what that response reveals about the thing it thinks it is reacting to.

So sure, the object of the motivation might be perceived to be something real outside your stuff and your identity. But the point in all this, and in EsSample, is that it is more perceived than real, more a boundary not yet traversed than a real object in itself. By definition, a real object does not inherently have value, and therefore cannot engender emotion.

So EsSample proposes that most of the remaining motivational stuff falls into this 4th area – everything else outside discrepancy stuff. It’s the general level of energy someone has.

Background and longest term and most of this 4th area of motivation is our wiring. Our wiring follows that of our inheritance, and responds to food, sex, social, and the other places of reward. However, EsSample points out that the more it tends towards the interpreted rewards, the more they are overtaken by modelling. So sweetness and erotica lie at the wiring end, and puddings and sexual relations fall at the interpreted end.

Medium term are activities grown out of habit and custom.

This is a short term local thing is resolving puzzles. We’ve already touched on the motivation from these.



In all the above, training influences a limited amount, let’s say 10%. There is a natural level of motivation, and this natural level is what is exhibited by most people most of the time.





Leg#9) Awareness.

Leg#9) Awareness.

(To be expanded: Windscreen, trained in method presenting to horse)



In reality, all the above unconscious stuff will be permeated by awareness at a level varying amongst us. It doesn’t significantly change over time. (Conscience and other aspects of enlightened behaviour may change over time, and these can be mistaken for awareness).

So this awareness is as hardwired as the other 4 areas.

Sure, motivation and awareness can be trained, just like discrepancy areas can be. But training improves a limited amount, let’s say 10%. There is a natural level, and this natural level is what is exhibited by most people most of the time.


And question from EsSample remains the same – what question can I ask myself that would reveal the most about where the boundary is, and specifically where the current instance of it makes itself known?


The question is as always, how to work out the shape and hardness and location of the origin of this particular feature in the boundary.

The skill is to feel and work out this source. It is likely to be associated with and tied to an external fortuitous circumstance. And here we face the endemic and inherent limitation of this brain of ours. It cannot identify its own source directly, and can do this only by inference. This obfuscation has to be for the same reason that evolution placed a split second delay between our decision to act, and the detection of that decision by our awareness (and the devices that record when we become aware of that decision).


The mere presence of the need to ask that question, the mere drive to ask, the mere awareness of that gap, are all symptoms of a gap to fill. Let’s say that gap is itself a symptom of recognising (which is the first sign of awareness) of the no mans land that we come from – that space that engenders where our value comes from.


So the best description of awareness is simply noticing. Awareness of the discrepancy stuff is outshone by the emotion and feelings. The effect is probably more like being aware of riding a horse somewhat out of your control. The sensation of wind, jolts changing direction and movement drowns out what you’d notice without it.

Without the discrepancy stuff, noticing will have the sensation is such as curiosity, interest, fun, puzzlement, etc, which is basically all the emotions other than those arising from resolving discrepancies.


Reflecting this division (between discrepancy resolution and uncontentious awareness) is the description that others see or make of the person under study. Most of the description or feeling about a person will focus on the discrepancy resolution, if only because that area is the one that generates the most emotion. They will also characterise the uncontentious behaviour, usually the hard-wired and habitual stuff, as part of describing that person.


So the discrepancy resolution drives the most noticeable aspect of our behaviour, and that is what most people will notice in observing an individual.

A person’s awareness has not featured prominently in other people’s assessment, but is noticed. That noticing is the product of unconscious modelling of intelligence, and influences likes and dislikes.

Outside this see resolution and hardwired behaviour, and develop, is a person’s awareness. This awareness is variable, anything between nothing and extensive. Extensive awareness in a person having no discrepancies to resolve results in a reflective person, choosing where to pay attention, and deliberate in that attention.

That awareness enables the refined modelling of the owner and all other persons, and of the world around. What is the motivation for this are modelling and curiosity? Is it the social nature, whose result is affirmation?


Whatever the motivation, the awareness strongly influences the behaviour of the individual. As much as the discrepancy resolution needs.



The overall awareness is already described as the distance between the mind’s eye and the operating equipment at the front of a car.

The profile of awareness in each of the 3 areas built a profile or of the whole person.

By definition, the awareness covered so far relates to just those 3 areas.


The model follows the recursive one already described somewhere else, where the greatest affirmation is provided by the other party recreating where you are, and you recreate where the other parties, at least to the recursive number that demonstrates neither are encumbered by discrepancy is to resolve.

So at this point, we can say behaviour is driven primarily by discrepancy resolution, driving the unconscious. Then the influences the background hardwired behaviour, that delivers a particular flavour of behaviour. And finally there is the awareness of both that overlays and influences the final delivery of that expression. Note that it is obviously likely that the more aware of an individual is, then the fewer discrepancies will persist and survive. There will be rare individuals who are driven by hardwired capabilities into having discrepancies, which they cannot address or resolve. Such persons will be in anguish and thanks, and may not even be aware or able to be aware of the source of discrepancy.


The 3rd and last influence is your awareness of the above, especially of discrepancy detection, and your contributions to the models and discrepancies. In effect, this amounts to being aware of of which props on the stage belong to, and are directed by, yourself.

This last influence of awareness (of the model and discrepancies) has a scale from unaware and sensing, unaware sensing, aware sensing, ‘independence from’, finally not ‘identifying as’ the model. In other words, the mind does not see itself as the model experiencing the discrepancies. In other words, it observes itself having and operating these models. So the scale also represents the extent to which the mind identifies as, and cannot separate itself from, the model. This must be equivalent to the schizophrenic who is unable to identify which of the commands of volition are generated by self, and which are generated by the mind.



Considering this as the position of the ‘mind’s eye’ is useful. A useful analogy is of the driver of the vehicle being close to the windscreen to the external world (unaware), or further back in the driver’s seat and seeing the contributions of pedals, gearstick, windscreen etc (aware).

An analogy of that awareness is that of the position of the driving seat in a car, and the visibility of controls for the windscreen wipers, headlights, heaters etc even the indoor light. Some, such as the headlights, influence the outside world. Others, like the heater, influences the inside world. Those who drive with their nose against the windscreen will see only the outside world. They have no visibility of their own contribution to (and influence on) the world they see. Conversely, those who have their seat back can see the influence of their car’s equipment. The car’s equipment contributes equally to both people. Both till operate the equipment, but the former operates its controls unconsciously and so do not see them. The difference is that the latter person sees more of what contributes to the experience.

The position of the seat is set at birth, and moves relatively little during living and experiences. Some kids have their seats further back than adults. (As an aside, age and experience does not so much move the seat back as to increase acceptance of, and familiarity with, where they are. This acceptance and familiarity is usually called wisdom, and is not related to awareness)


Impersonal generalised progression, actions

The 1st step in awareness is the distance from the windshield, and I guess this is mostly genetic. I have no idea how the environment does and would influence this capability, and it is probably the most difficult area to observe and model by an outsider.

Once the distance is achieved, the mind’s eye can be equipped with tools and tricks and support to increase the attention and visibility of the mind’s own equipment. The analogy is that these tools and tricks and support are inserted between the mind’s eye and the windshield, and act as mirrors (to the mind’s internal equipment) and focal points other than the outside (breaking the engaging, addictive and hypnotic spell of what’s outside the windshield).

The result of the distance is that your own equipment becomes a player in the big game, and your mind’s eye is no longer tied to add distracted by an monopolised by what’s outside the windscreen. The addiction of identity, even the noticing of identity, is inversely proportional to this distance. The change in myself demonstrates that change occurs. Perspectives and distance changes, monopolised attention and focus is snapped, the mind’s eye notices more.

(Keith Stanovich reflects this in Higher-Order Preferences)



Utilitarian: repositioning the mind’s eye

With yourself as another item on the stage that is being played out before your eyes (you see all your contributions in the wider model) you do not have personal identification or interest in the outcome. As a result, everything becomes items on the chessboard that you have to move and manage, and your pieces have no inherent different consideration from the others.

This change from inherently identifying with a chess piece and being the chess piece, to seeing it and being outside it, is a quantum leap that transforms the landscape. That quantum leap versus the chasm referred to above, where the player is unable to be aware of (sense, detect, describe) anything that they are not aware of (unconscious), and so blindspot and disregard the item completely. Indeed disregard the bizarre status of items that are crucial to your operation, yet completely visible and undetectable to you. This bizarreness feels like the same bizarreness of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (quantum mechanics), where an item is either a wavelength or particle that cannot have it both. The likeness is that you are unable to focus on an item if it is inherently part of your identity (you cannot see it, but can sense it as you ride it), yet the moment you see it – it is no longer part of your identity and become some other item in the external landscape.