This reminds me of several threads around here.

Edge puts forward a question every year. 2005 it is "What Do You Believe Is True Even Though You Cannot Prove It?"

They did not ask WG, but they did ask Sterling (who was not very illustrative).

I particularly liked the dicotomy between those who went the "big truth" way, things that probably will never be satisfactorily proved, and those who presented concepts that will be proved or disproved in the near future.

MIchael Shermer does present what would be my roughly own answer, and something that has appeared here already:

quote:

---

In conclusion, I believe, but cannot prove...that reality exists and science is the best method for understanding it, there is no God, the universe is determined but we are free, morality evolved as an adaptive trait of humans and human communities, and that ultimately all of existence is explicable through science.

---

There are many deep, many shallow, and a few humororus answers. Rudy Rucker's is one of the best of that last kind.

Many consciousness and lack of free will answers as well, but after reading all, the one I would take is the one word answer (then elaborated) from Neil Gershenfeld.

quote:

---

Progress.

---

José

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Psychophant,

I like what Roger Schank had to say.

They have even asked Anton Zeilinger. (My g/f won't like that ... or propably will.)

quote:

---

What Do You Believe Is True Even Though You Cannot Prove It?

---

That a woman does what she does because of a certain reason.

____________
But 42 probably is the answer.

>>I believe that consciousness and its contents are all that exists.
Not so often I come across people saying that, though personally I prefer a more expansive word than consciousness - if we ever met up there'd have to be a bit of defining or something, perhaps, me prefering to hold, as to this thought, that consciousness is part of us, and that we can be without being conscious, or conscious in particular ways that he might be wanting/positing.

quote:

---

I suspect that morphogenetic fields work by imposing patterns on the otherwise random or indeterminate patterns of activity. For example they cause microtubules to crystallize in one part of the cell rather than another, even though the subunits from which they are made are present throughout the cell...Others may prefer to dispense with the idea of fields and explain the evolution of organization in some other way, perhaps using more general terms like "emergent systems properties". But whatever the details of the models, I believe that the natural selection of habits will play an essential part in any integrated theory of evolution, including not just biological evolution, but also physical, chemical, cosmic, social, mental and cultural evolution.

---

Rupert Sheldrake
Thanks DP@W

I believe that everything is of necessity both absolute and relative AND that these terms still have moral meaning.

I believe, but cannot prove, that man is just another animal, with no special dispensations provided by any god. A promising animal, but an animal.

That this reality is but a thin page on a very thick book full of alternate ones.
But since we cannot escape this page, the point is moot.

This thread is too dense to be over with in one bite.
But I've come to realize that I don't believe anymore. I did believe in a lot before, but now it's more like I'll throw a fish in the pond and see what happens.

Ah, but at least you believe in the pond, and the fish as well.

quote:

---

But since we cannot escape this page, the point is moot.

---

I believe that, having invented the idea of "escape" it will one day be possible.

i believe that the universe revolves around me.
and that it doesn't matter in the slightest.

one guy was saying he felt we would get better, more just, that sort of stuff, and i found that i don't believe that to be the case. i think that a relatively small proportion of us experienced a blip of good will and charity last century and that these sentiments are ebbing as we speak.

It is the natural state of humanity to live together peacably without the necessity of coercion. However, not only can't I prove that, but I do not believe any such society can be grown from, or built on the detritus of, the authoritarian systems in which we now live.

(i'm not sure how much of it is nature &or nurture, but i find the little kids i know don't naturally live to harmonise with each other. they love a good scrap. they love winning and having the best thing. they find it quite hard to share. )

/derail

Re: the natural tendency not to harmonize, to compete. Reminded me of a Sierra Club (or some other similar group) poster I once saw, with an idyllic depiction of nature: a conglomerate of all beasts, from mountain lions to deer to bears to salmon fish to monkeys, embracing and serenely resting together, as if posing for a family portrait. "yeah, sure, nature is like that..."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: fuldog,

I'm actually talking about societies, not individual humans and their propensities. Not that it butters much scone.