Pattern perception as a basic cognitive expression of rationality (and one more thought on the same topic)

 I have already talked about this in other texts. In this one, I try to be more objective.

I must have already mentioned that rationality can be considered a contextualization in the real world of pattern perception; in which those IQ test questions to find the pattern of a numerical sequence are replaced by questions and analyses of patterns of the most diverse orders in the real world. So, high rational capacity would also be a more developed capacity for pattern perception, but of true patterns, which would be its most important cognitive aspect: attention and the ability to perceive patterns of recurrence and variation, also in an abstract, statistical sense... extrapolating beyond the perception of physical or chemical phenomena. In other words, to perceive reality itself and to expand one's understanding of it beyond the basics that the senses can capture. But also to establish oneself in the most important or relevant perspectives, which is what matters most in a realistic sense. In other words, a perceptive capacity more directly linked to survival, but also in a more holistic, objective, impartial, preventive, medium to long-term sense than typically subjective, partial, remedial and short-term. The difference between seeking to understand the world in order to adapt or survive to it, and doing so in the opposite order, in which it is the mode of adaptation and survival that dictates what will be considered true or false. The example of religion, if its sensation, on average, is more pleasant for those who adopt it as a personal belief, usually contributes to the emotional and social adjustment of the individual, and then, it comes to be treated as an absolute truth, precisely because of the direct link that is established between personal benefit and determination of truth, by the logic "the thought that does me good, is because it is an absolute truth".

2. If I haven't said it before, again.

Relationship between levels of consciousness (realistic, surrealistic and hyperrealistic) and levels of rationality

The first is a thought of my own, about how consciousness would express itself in a hierarchy of qualitative and quantitative expression, in which its lowest levels (realistic) would be variably more instinctive: restricted, strict, pragmatic... And its highest levels, more contemplative and existentialist (hyperrealistic). So, the relationship between the two hierarchies of expression would be as follows: the lowest levels of consciousness, the first layer of attention and understanding of the world, would express non-rational levels*. These levels represent the "animal kingdom" of consciousness. The intermediate or surrealist levels, the second layer of attention and understanding of the world, would express lower levels of rationality, which represent the "ideological kingdom", common to most human beings. Finally, the highest levels, or hyperrealists (philosophical kingdom), would express the highest levels of consciousness, attention and understanding of the world, and therefore also of rationality.

* Based on my thinking that non-human animals cannot be rational, but neither can be irrational, if they have not evolved intellectually and cognitively to the level of reason, it would be the same as saying that humans are deficient in the ability to fly, after all, we have not evolved physically to become capable of flying either. And if irrationality is synonymous with stupidity, which makes no sense at the level of adaptive logic of other species, it would be the same as saying that fish are stupid because they do not know how to walk on dry land, even though the comparison of intelligence has its validity, but is restricted to itself, so that it is possible to trace a progressive line of cognitive evolution between species (humans are more intelligent than fish), but it is not possible to categorically state that a species is intrinsically "stupid" (fish are only stupid because they are less intelligent than humans). Again, the same idea that an existing context of possibility is necessary, otherwise it is not even a comparison between apples and pears, different within the same category, but between apples and stones, from different categories.