Exploring Intuition (WIP)

[Joshe]

Exploring intuition a bit more: 

"When people rely heavily on formal analysis — breaking things down logically, using definitions or structured reasoning — they often build clarity, but not necessarily intuition. Intuition develops faster and deeper when the mind is tuned to patterns first: noticing, comparing, recognizing familiar structures in unfamiliar places. That pattern sensitivity seems to train a kind of silent fluency that compounds over time.

Also, learning style matters. When new ideas are immediately plugged into something real — applied to a system, a scenario, or a familiar frame — they settle more deeply. That’s different from memorizing terms or holding abstract models in the head. 

We all shift between these modes, but the balance matters. The more time spent seeking patterns and connecting new ideas to function and context, the deeper and more instinctive intuition becomes. 

The more time spent in abstract silos or patternless theory, the less work one puts into relating ideas to lived reality — and the more disconnected those ideas become from the very systems they aim to illuminate.

An academic-style thinker trained in abstract-theoretical learning and formal analysis is often caught in a loop of definition, comparison, and framework-mapping. That mode builds clarity and precision, but it also creates distance from direct perception and lived integration — the very soil that spiritual insight tends to grow in.

Spiritual understanding, by its nature, tends to arise from pattern-recognition across layers of reality — psychological, emotional, symbolic, embodied — and often depends on the integration of insight into context, not just abstract knowing. So if someone’s default is to "understand before feeling," or "define before experiencing," they're likely, to some degree, unconsciously fencing themselves off from the terrain they're trying to explore.

Clarity of explanation delays depth of realization. The bottleneck isn't one of genetic wiring but of cognitive posture."

[UnbornTao]

Why not do it without input from AI? While it can be useful overall, relying on it kind of defeats the purpose of contemplation.

You could ask: What is my experience of intuition? And then contemplate it in real time - either as you try to intuit something yourself, or by observing others who seem to be doing so.

Edited June 20 by UnbornTao

[Joshe]

Ain’t got time for all that bruh. I feed it my ideas and ask it to verify them and flesh it out. The ideas themselves come from contemplation, but there’s not enough time to contemplate everything deeply. For example, I took the idea about intution being more or less developed due to learning style and explained the idea to AI. It said I had a brilliant insight and explained why. It provided solid reasoning and fit well with my existing knowledge, so then I used another AI to look for holes. It couldn’t find any and neither could I. So at that point, I move forward with the ideas likely being valid until holes are revealed. 

Smarter, not harder. That’s my motto. It takes me a ton of effort to put words to what I intuitively know.

These insights about intuition couldn’t be arrived at without deep contemplation of it. It’s one of the most fascinating and persistent aspects of my reality, so there’s no shortage of contemplating it. 

BTW, I accidentally posted this in the wrong subtopic, if you want to move it. 

Edited June 21 by Joshe

[UnbornTao]

Got it, thank you.

Edited June 21 by UnbornTao

[Deziree]

11 hours ago, Joshe said:

Exploring intuition a bit more: 

"When people rely heavily on formal analysis — breaking things down logically, using definitions or structured reasoning — they often build clarity, but not necessarily intuition.

This is the exact problem with academic institutions. Just more theory but not coordinated or integrated with real life experience, nothing to consider as a base. Logically speaking, all kinds of permutations and combinations are possible. Clarity wise this only enhances your analytical skills but doesn't help with outcome based contemplation. 

11 hours ago, Joshe said:

Intuition develops faster and deeper when the mind is tuned to patterns first: noticing, comparing, recognizing familiar structures in unfamiliar places. That pattern sensitivity seems to train a kind of silent fluency that compounds over time.

True. This is probably the most successful formula for sharpening intuition. You keep building it over and over, being more objective than subjective. Your pattern recognition ability just keeps improving. 

11 hours ago, Joshe said:

Also, learning style matters. When new ideas are immediately plugged into something real — applied to a system, a scenario, or a familiar frame — they settle more deeply. That’s different from memorizing terms or holding abstract models in the head. 

Abstract models help temporarily especially when a new piece of information arrives in the fold. But as you continuously perceive and process information your reptilian brain will automatically focus more on pattern recognition, this is also a survival mechanism. 

11 hours ago, Joshe said:

We all shift between these modes, but the balance matters. The more time spent seeking patterns and connecting new ideas to function and context, the deeper and more instinctive intuition becomes. 

Yes the reptilian brain operates this way and that's why people who are disconnected from mainstream academics seem to thrive better on intuition and common sense. 

11 hours ago, Joshe said:

The more time spent in abstract silos or patternless theory, the less work one puts into relating ideas to lived reality — and the more disconnected those ideas become from the very systems they aim to illuminate.

We live in a relative world. Abstract theories apply better to abstract models of living or something less relative and neutral. 

11 hours ago, Joshe said:

An academic-style thinker trained in abstract-theoretical learning and formal analysis is often caught in a loop of definition, comparison, and framework-mapping. That mode builds clarity and precision, but it also creates distance from direct perception and lived integration — the very soil that spiritual insight tends to grow in.

Integration only comes from direct observation, and perception. 

11 hours ago, Joshe said:

Spiritual understanding, by its nature, tends to arise from pattern-recognition across layers of reality — psychological, emotional, symbolic, embodied — and often depends on the integration of insight into context, not just abstract knowing. So if someone’s default is to "understand before feeling," or "define before experiencing," they're likely, to some degree, unconsciously fencing themselves off from the terrain they're trying to explore.

I would consider it to be more realistic than spiritual. Spiritual understanding leads to integration of meta thinking and both subjective and objective experiences which is hard to do because the human brain always looks for context. 

11 hours ago, Joshe said:

Clarity of explanation delays depth of realization. The bottleneck isn't one of genetic wiring but of cognitive posture."

 

[Joshe]

Thanks for your comments @Deziree! I hadn't even considered a link between the reptilian brain and intuition. Seems intuitive now that you mention it 😆