Book · Curiosity · Observation · Causality · Building
Leonardo da Vinci
How did Leonardo see reality, and how did observation, experience, drawing, and the search for causes shape the way he understood and built?
Why I entered
Entering the conversation
I do not read primarily to learn something. Learning is usually a byproduct of reading. I read because I am a reader, because I want to remain in conversation with minds across time.
Leonardo became especially important to me because I am not interested in merely imitating his achievements or becoming “the next Leonardo.” I am interested in the substance beneath the mode: how he thought, how he observed, how he modelled reality, how he searched for causes, and how he refused to reduce himself to only an engineer, painter, anatomist, or inventor.
I entered this conversation because I wanted to understand the thinking process of a person whose curiosity crossed domains without asking permission from their boundaries.
Current reflectionI am still near the beginning of this large biography, around page 49, but Leonardo already feels different from the other books I am reading.
Thinking, Fast and Slow makes me feel that I have learned. James Allen makes me feel goodwill. Atomic Habits makes me feel productive. Biographies usually make me feel inspired. Leonardo makes me feel connected.
The connection may come from the way he approached the world. He did not seem satisfied with knowing the name of something or remaining inside one discipline. He observed, experienced, drew, questioned, and searched for causes.
A line quoted from his notebook stayed with me: “A well-spent day brings happy sleep; a well-spent life brings happy death.” It reminded me of my own thought: “Not building feels dishonest to me.”
I see a resonance in the method. Leonardo drew to understand; I build systems to understand. He opened human bodies to study anatomy; I open machines and mechanisms to study how they work. He was obsessed with understanding the world; I am increasingly obsessed with understanding how intelligent systems learn, reason, update, and build when truth cannot be calculated directly.
I do not yet know the full meaning of this connection. But Leonardo has a magnetic presence for me because his questions seem to connect several parts of my own mind at once.
Current point in the conversation
I am still near the beginning of Walter Isaacson’s biography, around page 23. I have begun encountering Leonardo’s notebooks, drawings, paintings, questions, observations, and his tendency to move between art, anatomy, engineering, and the natural world.
The book is already becoming more than a biography for me. It is becoming an investigation into how a mind sees, represents, questions, and attempts to understand reality.
- Reading Leonardo as a thinker, not only as a historical figure
- Interested in his method more than his reputation
- Observing how drawing, experience, and causality interact
- Noticing the connection between cross-domain curiosity and building
The resonances I am noticing
The connection I feel does not come from believing that my work is equivalent to Leonardo’s. It comes from recognizing similarities in orientation: curiosity before category, building as inquiry, sketches as thinking tools, and a repeated desire to understand causes rather than only visible effects.
- He drew to understand; I build systems to understand
- He examined anatomy; I examine machines and mechanisms
- He crossed art, science, and engineering
- I cross mechanical engineering, software, cognition, and systems
- He pursued causes behind effects
- I pursue the mechanisms behind learning, reasoning, and system behavior
Observation, experience, and cause
One idea that stayed with me was Leonardo’s orientation toward observing, experiencing, and exploring the cause.
I am still questioning the limits of this method. Some things may not need to be experienced directly before their causes can be investigated, and some experiences may be unsafe, inaccessible, or misleading. Still, the core orientation matters: do not stop at the appearance of an effect. Observe carefully, test experience where appropriate, and continue toward the causal structure beneath it.
James Allen reinforced a related distinction: one person may see an event only as threatening or destructive, while a philosopher attempts to understand the chain of causes behind it.
Kahneman adds another constraint: after proposing the cause, do not become overconfident. Wait for evidence, update probabilistically, and preserve uncertainty.
- Leonardo: observe, experience, and explore the cause
- James Allen: look beyond the event toward its causal chain
- Kahneman: do not accept the cause before sufficient evidence arrives
- My synthesis: observe the effect, investigate the cause, and preserve uncertainty
Why some minds stay with us
I have read many books over the last four years, including engineering, computer science, and software-development books. Yet I often cannot recall their authors. Thinkers such as James Allen, Daniel Kahneman, Dale Carnegie, John C. Maxwell, and Leonardo remain more present.
The difference may not be the amount of information learned. It may be resonance.
Some authors connect with one technical problem. Others connect with identity, values, cognition, curiosity, uncertainty, action, and the way a person interprets reality. They do not remain only as remembered content. They become active voices inside ongoing thought.
- Technical knowledge may be useful without becoming personally memorable
- Resonant thinkers connect with several parts of identity at once
- Ideas remain when they continue generating new questions
- Intellectual influence may operate through orientation, not imitation
- A thinker can become part of how later experiences are interpreted
Productive uncertainty
Questions still open
- 01
Why do some thinkers remain present in the mind long after reading them?
- 02
What creates intellectual resonance between two people across time?
- 03
How did Leonardo decide which questions deserved his attention?
- 04
Did he draw what he understood, or draw to understand?
- 05
How did observation become a model inside his mind?
- 06
What did Leonardo mean by exploring the cause behind an effect?
- 07
When should experience come before explanation?
- 08
When might direct experience be unnecessary, unsafe, or misleading?
- 09
Why did Leonardo resist remaining inside one domain?
- 10
Can a modern builder preserve cross-domain curiosity without becoming directionless?
- 11
Why do I remember thinkers in psychology, philosophy, leadership, and biography more strongly than authors of technical books?
- 12
What parts of Leonardo’s thinking resonate with my own work in robotics, intelligent systems, and systems under uncertainty?
Dated notes
Reflection log
Why Leonardo Feels Different
I have been reading several books at once, usually for about three hours a day: one hour for each conversation. The books do not produce the same internal response.
Kahneman makes me feel that I have learned. James Allen makes me feel goodwill. Atomic Habits makes me feel productive. Biographies often make me feel inspired and motivated.
Leonardo feels different. I feel connected.
I am not drawn to him because I want to reproduce his identity or become “the next Leonardo.” That would only imitate the visible mode. What interests me is the substance beneath it: how he saw reality, how he observed, how he reasoned, how he drew, how he moved between domains, and how he searched for causes.
He did not categorize himself merely as an engineer, painter, anatomist, or inventor. He appears first as a curious person.
That resonates with me. Leonardo drew sketches to understand; I build systems to understand. He studied bodies to understand anatomy; I study mechanisms and machine parts. He asked about the structure and causes of the world; I ask how intelligent systems learn, reason, update, and build when truth remains uncertain.
I am still near the beginning of the book, but the conversation already feels magnetic. Perhaps some thinkers stay with us because they do not connect to only one interest. They connect several unfinished parts of the mind at the same time.