[ghthor]

When I get feelings for and idea I let my mind thoroughly explore its possibilities. The work of Jeff Hawkins has heavily influenced how I meditate and observe my brain leading to consistently better mental health management. While I say this with such certainty, I know it is a hypothesis that's unproven by studies. But it just feels satisfyingly right from my observations of myself and the world around me. My model of the world is always changing and I'm open to being disproved and accepting new ideas, and ultimately, reality as we understand it.

[johndotsun]

I'm personally very conscientious in avoiding forming models of the world around me by incorporating what my brain decides "feels satisfyingly right" based on my own anecdotal observations. Humans have been operating as you describe for thousands of years but it was only when some of us began replacing pure cognition, feelings, and intuitive satisfaction with systematic empiricism that we began to make significant headway in understanding the world.

[ghthor]

I personally view the feeling of satisfyingly right as the touch point begin empirical analysis. Given the amount of effort required to conduct a study, I wouldn't personally put forth the effort for anything that didn't feel satisfying right, as I'm sure most of our famous scientists of the past guided there own interests and motivations. You shouldn't be afraid of feeling ways about ideas, you should be afraid of becoming attached to a hypothesis, but you could still use an unproven hypothesis to guide your own life.

[johndotsun]

I agree that the intuitive feelings can be a good starting point for better analysis, but I don't then incorporate those ideas into my model of the world without verifying them to a sufficient degree of rigor. If the subject is something like, "what food is in this unlabeled tin can" then sufficient rigor is opening the can and then I can reasonably assume that the rest of the identical unmarked cans in the box it came from are probably more of the same. If the subject is, "how does the human brain work" I'm going to require a hell of a lot more investigation and evidence before I can say that a theory that I've come up with is correct. Extremely intelligent people have been working on this problem for many decades and while we've learned some things we're not yet anywhere close to understanding how the brain works in even animals with much simpler brains. Because of this, I am very skeptical of any theory I as a laymen could come up with regardless of how much research I read from scientists working in the field, and I certainly wouldn't consider a "feeling of satisfyingly right" as being meaningful at all in my consideration of what model is correct and which is not correct.

I'm also not "afraid of feeling ways about ideas", I just don't built my models of the world based on feelings unless I'm building a model of my feelings.

[bitexploder]

We are also extremely good at convincing ourselves that things are "true". It is extremely easy for a smart enough person to rationalize almost any personal or "deeply held" belief.

On the other hand some things are within our purview to decide and act upon if we believe in them and they feel "right", no rationalizing or justification required. I am always suspicious if I find myself rationalizing a belief or feeling. But if I simply enjoy it or it seems "right".. I just stop thinking there. Mostly these are things that only impact oneself, and not others. I think when choices impact others more analysis is then required depending on the nature of the decision.

Models can be very risky to apply to why we think a certain way, because they are almost always wrong. Or they can be more right than wrong, but wrong in very impactful ways.