This document records not only two modes of thinking but also the layer that precedes any “thinking” as such: the distinction of an event.
The purpose of this document:
1. To show that what first enters the field of attention is “something happened.”
2. To establish the event as the common input for different processing modes.
3. To distinguish the operations of the two modes: compression into a template and expansion into a causal structure.
1) Ontological Input: Distinction Before Interpretation
The key proposition:
Consciousness does not immediately think. First, it distinguishes something.
This initial act is not yet a conclusion, an explanation, or a decision. It is a moment of the following kind:
– “something happened”;
– “something changed”;
– “something did not match expectations”;
– “something requires a response.”
Working Concept: Event
An event is not an “objective fact,” but something that has been distinguished as a significant change.
Important:
– an event is not identical to the entirety of external reality;
– an event is a segment of reality that has entered consciousness;
– an event is the minimal input from which subsequent processing begins.
2) Why “Event” Rather Than “Fact” or “Situation”
- Fact usually presupposes that an interpretation has already been formed (“what actually happened”).
- Situation presupposes that context and conditions have already been assembled (“how things stand”).
- Event captures the minimal level: “something happened,” without answers to “why?” and “what should be done?”
In brief:
event -> processing -> situation
Thus, a situation is the result of processing an event, not its starting point.
3) What Exactly Is Distinguished as an Event
Consciousness does not distinguish everything indiscriminately, but primarily deviations and tensions. The minimal set of triggers for distinction:
- Change: it was one way -> it became different.
- Violation of expectation: A was expected, B occurred.
- Potential threat or benefit: the event may have consequences.
- Social signal: another person’s action requiring a response.
These are not yet causes or meanings, only grounds for initiating processing.
4) The Common Scheme Before the Modes Diverge
Both modes operate on the same input:
Reality
↓
Distinction
↓
[ Event ]
↓
Further processing
They differ not in their “level of intelligence,” but in the operation performed on the event.
5) Template-Based Mode
Definition
The template-based mode is a way of processing in which an event is quickly matched against a known form and compressed into a ready-made pattern.
Within this logic, template-based thinking is a situation in which, instead of analyzing, a person completes a picture for themselves that corresponds to their internal scheme.
Basic formula:
event -> resembles X -> apply ready-made response X
The Mode’s Key Question
“What does this resemble?”
How It Works
- External features of the event are taken (actors, type of action, emotional tone, social context).
- A similar case is sought in memory.
- A ready-made response template is selected.
- The decision is considered sufficient without deeply unfolding the causes.
Strengths
- High response speed.
- Low energy expenditure.
- Easy synchronization with the norms of the environment.
- Efficiency under recurring conditions.
Limitations
- Superficial similarity is taken for causal identity.
- Sensitivity to hidden factors decreases.
- It works poorly in new or breaking contexts.
- It can reinforce systemic errors when reality changes.
The Template’s Self-Confirming Mechanism
A key rule of the template-based mode: it tends toward self-confirmation.
- A person thinking through templates most often sees confirmations of their templates.
- Every new event is classified within an already known scheme.
- Anything that does not fit the template is ignored, devalued, or forcibly reinterpreted.
Because of this, the person inside the template usually sees nothing beyond it: reality is read through a predetermined form rather than through examination of its causal structure.
6) Causal-Computational Mode
Definition
The causal-computational mode is a way of processing in which automatic recognition is temporarily suspended and an event is unfolded into a structure of conditions, factors, and connections.
Basic formula:
event -> decomposition -> examination of causal connections -> conclusion
The Mode’s Key Question
“What came together to produce this?”
How It Works
- An event is not considered “understood” merely because its form resembles something familiar.
- Elements, conditions, actors, and tensions are identified.
- Causal connections, contradictions, and boundaries of applicability of hypotheses are examined.
- Only then is it decided whether any template is applicable at all.
Strengths
- Greater precision in complex reality.
- Resistance to false closure.
- Capacity to construct new routes under atypical conditions.
- More reliable work with consequences.
Limitations
- High cost in time and attentional resources.
- It may conflict with the social norm “respond immediately.”
- From the outside, it may appear slow or excessively complex.
7) The Model’s Key Thesis
Templates are recognized not directly in reality, but in an event understood as a distinguished fragment of reality.
However, the subsequent operations differ:
– the template-based mode seeks similarity of form;
– the causal-computational mode seeks the structure of formation.
This difference explains why the same input can produce different decisions.
8) Comparison of the Modes
| Parameter | Template-Based Mode | Causal-Computational Mode |
|---|---|---|
| Common input | Event | Event |
| Basic operation | Compression into familiar form | Expansion into structure |
| Key question | “What does it resemble?” | “What does it consist of?” |
| Criterion of validity | Recognizability | Causal consistency |
| Speed | High | Lower |
| Energy expenditure | Low | High |
| Handling novelty | Limited | Strong |
| Handling contradictions | Smoothing over / ignoring | Identifying / accounting for |
9) The Distinction Between “Knowledge” and “Grounds for Action”
For the model, it is important to distinguish:
- knowledge of a template: “in cases like this, people usually act this way”;
- grounds for action: “I act this way because it is causally valid here and now.”
In the causal-computational mode, a typical configuration is:
– a template has been recognized;
– but it has not been accepted as grounds for action because of limitations and contradictions.
10) Why This Is Critical for the Anti-Bullshit Detector
Manipulation often operates at the transition event -> template:
– a form of the event is imposed;
– the unfolding into structure is blocked;
– the event is immediately presented as “obviously familiar.”
Consequently, the function of the Anti-Bullshit Detector is:
– to stop the automatic collapse of an event into a template;
– to return the event to a mode in which unfolding is permitted.
11) Practical Conclusion for the Ontological Model
Working scheme:
Reality
↓
Distinction
↓
Event
↓
┌────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────┐
│ Template-Based Mode │ Causal-Computational Mode │
│ “What does it resemble?”│ “What does it consist of?” │
└────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────────┘
In this way, conflicts between people and decisions can be formalized as differences between processing modes applied to the same event, rather than as a “personal malfunction.”
The next logical step in developing the model is to formalize the internal structure of an event (elements, conditions, actors, tensions) as an operational rather than a philosophical layer.
12) Template-Based Thinking Through the Lens of Identity and Negation
The two modes can additionally be broken down in terms of basic logical operations:
- identity:
A = A(recognition); - negation/distinction:
A ≠ B(drawing boundaries).
Minimal connection:
- to recognize an object as “the same,” an operation of identity is required;
- to distinguish one object from another, an operation of negation is required.
How It Works in the Template-Based Mode
Template processing primarily economizes effort and seeks rapid equivalence:
new event -> resembles X -> therefore it is X
Thus, superficial resemblance often immediately collapses into identity. Negation is used minimally because it requires a more costly procedure:
- holding several objects simultaneously;
- comparing their structures, rather than only an external feature;
- establishing exactly where the boundary of difference lies.
What Changes When Analysis Deepens
When automatic recognition is suspended, a series of checks begins:
A ≠ X, A ≠ Y, A ≠ Z.
This is not “nitpicking,” but the operational unfolding of differences. Only after this stage is a more precise identification possible, one that is no longer based on the first resemblance.
Practical Conclusion
In this sense:
- template-based thinking tends toward the trajectory
resemblance -> identity; - causal-computational thinking tends toward
initial identity -> testing through negation -> refined identity.
This is why greater depth is usually experienced as “increased complexity”: it requires dismantling identities established too quickly and restoring the boundaries between differences.
