Our Concrete Minds, Making a Concrete Universe

Life, existence, reality, whatever you want to call it, what is it?  Where are we? And who are we? These are only a few of the seemingly unanswerable questions.  Questions asked in such an abstract mindset that a solution seems impossible. They are impossible until we bring them into conceptually objective terms and allow assumptions to be made.

Life is the existence of an individual human being or animal.  That is straight out of Google. Within a millisecond I received an answer to such a confusing question.  Obviously we both know Google’s answer isn’t anywhere close to what I was referring to in the first paragraph.  It seemed clear I was questioning the nature of our reality. Essentially wondering what the very thing existence can be classified as other than using synonymous words with the one I am trying to define.  Yet here is Google doing what it does best, giving us straightforward, concrete answers.

I then asked Google what the universe is expanding into. It told me, “The Universe isn’t expanding into anything, it’s just expanding. The definition of the Universe is that it contains everything. If something was outside the Universe, it would also be part of the Universe.”  Nice, another easy one. We are in the universe, which is within itself, so we are definitely in the universe. A simple concrete way to address such a complex question. Rather than wondering what could be beyond the fabric of time and matter, it is quickly concluded that there is nothing.

I think you get the point.  There appears to be an issue when trying to ask an abstract question in such a concrete world.  Whether it be the respect we have for hard science compared to soft science, or the traditional answers we have to truly thought-provoking questions, it seems we have a preference to think concretely.  For instance, which theory is harder to understand and accept, the theory of Plate Tectonics dictating how and why earth’s land moves or that gender and sex are two different things?  These are both commonly accepted among the scientists within their field, yet the distinction between gender and sex appears to be widely less accepted, which, all in all, makes total sense.  

Of humanity’s two-hundred thousand years of existence, all but five percent of that time has been spent running around as hunters and gatherers.  It wasn’t until roughly ten-thousand years ago we began to use our brains in ways that advanced human development. As you can imagine, this has not allowed a lot of time for abstract thought.  Rather than sitting in a room questioning who we are, most of humanity has spent its time looking for its next meal.

This dominance in thought has, in my opinion, led to a huge societal problem.  I feel that this bias and preference for concrete thought has limited society’s growth.  It is stopping us from considering so many perspectives and ideas simply because we are not used to thinking in that way.  We either take these abstract questions as absolute truth or unpopular opinion. For example, have you ever considered that we assume if something is false it can not be true?  It may seem obvious at first, but when you break it down you realize it is merely an assumption we make, rather than a fact of the universe.  

These ways of thinking should both be considered in the same questioning, yet open-minded way.  We should strive to understand the significance of both and allow them to cross our minds before we take a stance on a subject.  Google’s first link is convenient and fast, so we definitely should not ignore that luxury. But maybe we need to give the concrete mindset a little break.  Maybe we need to scroll a little down the page to find the less accepted, but equally important answers to the world around us.  

Let me know what you think in the comments below and feel free to click the link below to read more on the subject of reasoning and thought. http://complexitylabs.io/subjective-thinking/