Work #1827 · Lifelong (the notebooks span Leonardo's entire adult career) period

Notebooks (Codex Atlanticus and others)

Leonardo's c. 7,000 surviving pages of manuscripts — anatomy, engineering, optics, geology, philosophy — the most extensive record of a single mind's encounter with nature in the Renaissance

Leonardo da Vinci · c. 1478–1519 (across Leonardo's entire career, from Florence through Milan, Rome, and Amboise) · Italian (mirror script) · Private notebooks, sketches, and treatise drafts

Tradition: Renaissance natural philosophy / empirical investigation / art-science synthesis

Experience is the mother of all certainty — the greatest Renaissance mind's direct encounter with anatomy, mechanics, optics, and the natural world

Leonardo's notebooks — approximately 7,000 surviving pages scattered across the Codex Atlanticus (Ambrosiana, Milan), Codex Leicester (Gates collection), Codex Arundel (British Library), Codex Madrid I–II, the Windsor anatomical manuscripts, and many smaller collections — are the most extensive record of a single mind's encounter with nature in the history of Western thought. Written in mirror script and never intended for publication, they contain anatomical drawings of unprecedented precision (the cardiovascular system, the fetus in utero, muscular mechanics), engineering designs (flying machines, armoured vehicles, hydraulic systems, bridges), optical studies (the behaviour of light and shadow, atmospheric perspective), geological observations (the stratification of rock, the nature of fossils), mathematical investigations (the geometry of proportions, the mechanics of forces), and scattered philosophical reflections on the nature of knowledge, experience, and the relation of art to science. The notebooks anticipate the empirical method a century before Bacon and Galileo: Leonardo insists on direct observation over textual authority, systematic experiment over speculation, and mathematical formalization as the test of genuine knowledge.

Author

Editions cited

  • Codex Atlanticus: Ambrosiana, Milan (12 volumes, 1894–1904; new transcription by Augusto Marinoni, 12 vols., 1975–80); Codex Leicester: trans. and commentary by Claire Farago (2018); Jean Paul Richter, The Literary Works of Leonardo da Vinci, 2 vols. (1883; 3rd ed. Phaidon, 1970); Edward MacCurdy, The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci, 2 vols. (Cape, 1938)

School Embodiments

Empiricism · 35%
Naturalism · 25%
Rationalism · 15%
Philosophy of Science · 15%
Aestheticism · 10%

The notebooks are the most sustained pre-Baconian statement of the empirical method: direct observation, systematic experiment, and distrust of textual authority.

"All our knowledge has its origin in our perceptions." (Codex Trivulzianus)

Leonardo's investigations are thoroughgoing naturalist: every phenomenon is explained by natural causes. The notebooks contain no appeals to supernatural agency in explaining anatomy, mechanics, or optics.

"Nature is constrained by the order of her own law which lives and works within her." (Codex Leicester)

Mathematics is the arbiter of genuine knowledge: "No human investigation can be called real science if it cannot be demonstrated mathematically."

"Mechanics is the paradise of the mathematical sciences, because by means of it one comes to the fruits of mathematics." (Manuscript E)

The notebooks contain explicit reflections on scientific method — the priority of experience, the role of hypothesis, the necessity of replication — that anticipate the formal philosophy of science.

"Before you make a general rule of this case, test it two or three times and observe whether the tests produce the same effects." (Manuscript M)

The notebooks' philosophical argument that painting is a "mental science" and the eye the supreme instrument of knowledge grounds the aesthetic-epistemic tradition in which art is a mode of knowing.

"The eye, which is called the window of the soul, is the principal means by which the central sense can most completely and abundantly appreciate the infinite works of nature." (Treatise on Painting)

Internal Tensions

The notebooks' philosophical significance is retrospective — Leonardo published nothing and his contemporaries knew him primarily as a painter. The empirical method they embody was developed independently by Bacon and Galileo. The internal tension is between rigorous observation and speculative overreach (the flying machines, the perpetual-motion studies). The silence about religion in scientific contexts coexists with conventional religious commissions (The Last Supper, the Annunciation) in the artistic career.

I. Time

Substantival and deterministic — every natural phenomenon follows from prior causes in the notebooks' scientific framework. Deep geological time is assumed.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Deterministic Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One

II. Space

Substantival, three-dimensional, flat, local — Euclidean space as the medium of perspective, mechanics, and anatomy.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

III. Matter

Substantival and conserved — the concrete stuff of anatomy, hydraulics, and engineering.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

IV. Observer

The embodied human observer equipped with the eye as the supreme instrument; active through experiment and dissection; plural; no metaphysical agency invoked in scientific contexts.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Immediate Knowledge Retainment: Total Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: None

V. Energy

Finite, conserved within mechanical systems, irreversible in geological and hydrological processes.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

Nature's laws as objective, discoverable information; personal information non-conserved (no interest in personal immortality in the scientific notebooks).

Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: Continuous

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

How Notebooks (Codex Atlanticus and others) resolves each dilemma

51 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 3 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 6 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 10% of schools agree (20/208)
Do you really choose?
If the brain is a physical system and physical systems are governed by laws, then every choice is also a chain of causes — which raises the question of what was really left to choose.
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
On this view, the future is determined and you are genuinely choosing. Those aren't contradictory because the determination runs through you rather than around you: your reasoning, deliberation, and assent are the way the determined outcome gets settled. Choice is what it feels like from …
Roads not taken The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. (69%) · Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 10% of schools agree (20/208)
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Addiction looks from one angle like the textbook case of agency failing — a person doing what they don't, in any meaningful sense, want to do. From another angle it looks like agency at work in hard conditions. Which it is depends on what agency is.
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
On this view, the addict is acting within a determined order but is genuinely acting — making decisions, endorsing or resisting urges, seeking or refusing help. Responsibility attaches not because some uncaused choice happened, but because the addict is the kind of agent through which …
Roads not taken The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. (69%) · The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 10% of schools agree (20/208)
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
When an autonomous AI takes an action that harms someone, the question of who or what is responsible — the developer, the operator, the model itself — turns on whether the model is the kind of thing that can be a responsible agent.
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
On this view, what makes a being responsible is not indeterminism but the kind of process the being is. An AI that deliberates, considers consequences, can be given reasons, and modifies its behaviour on reflection is doing what responsible agency is, even if its underlying …
Roads not taken An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. (69%) · An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers. (10%) · Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one. (6%)
6 mainstream positions
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream
Observer · 37 dilemmas, all mainstream
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 55% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 55% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 50% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 50% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 50% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally. 50% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. 47% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. 47% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems. 46% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical. 46% Does prayer change God's mind? If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next. 46% Are the dead morally present to the living? Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present. 43% What makes someone the same person over time? You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity. 36% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed. 36% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? Different body, different person — you died in the scanner. 36% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. 36% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. 36% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams. 36% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind. 31% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration. 31% What happens to "you" when you die? Death is genuinely the end. 29% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain. 29% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise only insofar as it coheres with first-person experience. 17% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? What gets called 'revelation' is real direct experience — not a text. 17% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM has no first-person experience, so no knowing in the relevant sense. 17% Does history have a direction or meaning? How is knowledge of reality produced? Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal? Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
← #1826 Oration on the Dignity of Man All Works #1828 The Prince →