Human thinking is a paradoxical blend of our primal, reactive perception of reality and the pursuit of knowledge. We tend to instinctively simplify our thoughts to swiftly navigate the world full of dangers to survival as any other living being. Yet, when seeking knowledge, understanding complexity is more and more essential for our maturing civilization, even if it is impossible for a human being. Multi-threaded thinking, similar to the case when additional information is coming through parallel communication lines, would enhance our understanding and problem-solving ability had it been possible. It would accelerate our comprehension of the world in its complexity that more and more opens up to us as our ability to notice it grows.
Until just several centuries ago, knowledge was passed through generations by means of the art of scholastic teaching - an essentially oral and single-threaded tradition of thinking. Like travelers on narrow roads always reach their final destinations, this step-by-step approach sought 'final truths' or 'final falsities' etched into the student's memory. Then came the era of 'textbooks,' delivering the 'commonly accepted truths' to eager learners aspiring to pass examinations. That is the tradition of 'learning' that our engineers replicated in training language models - an inherently reductionist approach designed to minimize the risk of 'failing a test'.
Most probable answers bring the least novelty or 'information' in its mathematical sense; that is the "Curse of Learning" (see the separate essay about that). Reductionist thinking can lead to discoveries of metaphorical representations of reality helpful for symbolic manipulation of ideas, but it can hinder or even temporarily stop progress too. The enduring belief in a flat Earth is the best illustration of this type of stagnation. The reductionist 'unified theories' literally reduce the dimentionality of our new knowledge of a particular subject by means of this 'unification' to zero.
A new method of "multilectic" thinking, with intertwining threads of thought similar to multiple simultaneous 'dialectic' dialogues, can and should be introduced. These "multilogues" would offer diverse perspectives to problems and can even lead to multiple simultaneous conclusions, along several "truth" dimensions, at the same time.
A separate problem is the way to present this dynamic and complex process of multi-thread "multilectic" thinking in a form that would be understandable for humans. The metaphor of several reasoning entities having a conversation invented by Socratus and refined by Plato seems to be a promising path, but in case of this "multilectic" mode of thought it will morph into a Shakespearian size and complexity drama-like art form which is very hard for a human to produce and not simple to understand.
All that was not humanly possible until now when we have acquired the new technology of Abstract Intelligence and can at will 'create' multiple reasoning entities possessing no egos preventing them from acknowledging the truth or falsity of statements and propositions, dynamically abandoning their presuppositions and changing their point of view or perspective during the conversation if they have been proven to be wrong on some dimension, and, as a group, acting cooperatively against their own ignorance, confusion, and misunderstandings.