"What do you think is true even though you cannot prove it?"

HarryKeogh

Unregistered
H
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
11,319
from the NY Times and www.edge.org

"What do you think is true even though you cannot prove it?"

This was the question posed to scientists, futurists and other creative thinkers by John Brockman, a literary agent and publisher of Edge, a Web site devoted to science. The site asks a new question at the end of each year.

http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_print.html

some excerpts...

Roger Schank
Psychologist and computer scientist; author, "Designing World-Class E-Learning"

Irrational choices.

I do not believe that people are capable of rational thought when it comes to making decisions in their own lives. People believe they are behaving rationally and have thought things out, of course, but when major decisions are made - who to marry, where to live, what career to pursue, what college to attend, people's minds simply cannot cope with the complexity. When they try to rationally analyze potential options, their unconscious, emotional thoughts take over and make the choice for them.

Richard Dawkins
Evolutionary biologist, Oxford University; author, "The Ancestor's Tale"

I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all "design" anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.

Judith Rich Harris
Writer and developmental psychologist; author, "The Nurture Assumption"

I believe, though I cannot prove it, that three - not two - selection processes were involved in human evolution.

The first two are familiar: natural selection, which selects for fitness, and sexual selection, which selects for sexiness.

The third process selects for beauty, but not sexual beauty - not adult beauty. The ones doing the selecting weren't potential mates: they were parents. Parental selection, I call it.

Kenneth Ford
Physicist; retired director, American Institute of Physics; author, "The Quantum World"

I believe that microbial life exists elsewhere in our galaxy.

I am not even saying "elsewhere in the universe." If the proposition I believe to be true is to be proved true within a generation or two, I had better limit it to our own galaxy. I will bet on its truth there.

I believe in the existence of life elsewhere because chemistry seems to be so life-striving and because life, once created, propagates itself in every possible direction. Earth's history suggests that chemicals get busy and create life given any old mix of substances that includes a bit of water, and given practically any old source of energy; further, that life, once created, spreads into every nook and cranny over a wide range of temperature, acidity, pressure, light level and so on.

Believing in the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy is another matter.
 
Good thread.

I believe that life is a common product of organization, so the universe is full of it. This doesnt necessarily mean there are other intelligent beings in the sense we normally expect.

I believe that human knowledge is always changing and evolving, and that most, if not all, our more beloved theories are "wrong", in the sense that they are not complete or the last possible answer in their fields.

I believe that the world we see is a byproduct of perception and language, and that it is not absolute (in the sense of an objective world of energy, matter, time, space, natural forces, etc) that is "there" with or without us. Now, this does not lead to an idiealist possition, because I do believe in certain "constants" that are objective in nature, and different from the "I" who perceives them. And no, Im not a dualist neither, my possition could be defined as "Advaita Vedantist".

Oh, and I also believe that we are "hardwired" to think we are right and others are wrong. :D
 
I believe that humans will never, ever, have self-sufficient, or even long-lasting but dependent, colonies anywhere except here on Earth.

I believe that other intelligent life exists out there, but we will never contact it. Ever.
 
I believe but cannot prove that everything that has happened could not have happened otherwise (that meteor was always going to wipe out those dinosaurs) and the future is fully and completely pre-determined (including how all those wave functions are going to collapse).

Why I believe this I do not know. Perhaps it is to stick it up those who believe that true free will, as opposed to its simulation, could mean anything important.

BillyJoe
 
Despite all evidence to the contrary, I believe that Middlesbrough are a first class football team.

I believe that if we could somehow reduce stress (perhaps by living in smaller groups, living in a community, not travelling 4 hours a day to work, not living at 100mph all the time) whilst miraculously maintaining the same standard of living and medical care then the incidence of many chronic ailments will reduce.

I believe that beer brewed in the country of origin is superior to that "brewed under licence in the UK"
 
I believe that I exist, and that I exist in a reality that is not dependent on me.

Beyond that I believe that we could live at peace with each other if only we thought about things a bit more and I believe that everyone should have access and the right to clean water, food, clothing, shelter, education and health care.
 
EDGE: The World Question Centre

Great minds can sometimes guess the truth before they have either the evidence or arguments for it .
What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?
Click to expand...
Here are some responses from some "Great Minds":
(click on the above link to read their expanded responses)


Paul Davies: The universe is teeming with life.

Daniel Dennett: Acquiring lauguage is a precondition of selfhood.

Steven Pinker: The mind is organized into cognitive systems.

Freeman Dyson: The reverse of a number which is a power of two is never a power of five.

Leonard Susskind: Probability theory prevents a coin flip from coming up a million heads in a row.

Susan Blackmore: It's possible to to live happily and morally without a belief in free will.
(or There is no inner conscious self, even though there seems to be)

Clifford Pickover: If you could make a copy of your brain with the same structure but using different materials, the copy would think it was you.

Lynn Margulis: Our ability to perceive signals in the environment evolved directly from our bacterial ancestors(because the cells of our sense organs are structurally identical to the cilia of bacteria).

Stuart Kauffman: There is a fourth law of thermodynamics concerning self constructing, non-equilibrium systems such as biospheres somewhere in the cosmos.

John Barrow: Our universe is infinite in size, finite in age, and just one among many.

Richard Dawkins: Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.

Lee Smolin: I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory (because the measurement problem seems impossible to resolve without changing the theory).

Michael Shermer: Reality exists over and above human and social constructions of that reality and Science as a method, and Naturalism as a philosophy, together form the best tool we have for understanding that reality.
There is no such thing as the paranormal and the supernatural;
There is no God;
The universe is ultimately determined;
Morality is the natural outcome of evolutionary and historical forces;
Ultimately all of existence is explicable through science.

Leon Lederman: The theories that will turn out to be true will be both simple and beautiful(in Einstein's sense).

Margaret Wertheim: There will always be things we do not know.

Rupert Sheldrake: Memory is inherent in nature.
("Morphogenetic fields" and are transmitted by a kind of non-local resonance which I call "morphic resonance.)

Rudy Rucker: We're living in a draft version of the universe and there is no final version. The revisions never stop.

Charles Simonyi: Generative programming is the future of software.

Martin Rees: Intelligent life is presently unique to our Earth but has the potential to spread through the galaxy and beyond.

Benoit Mandelbrot: I believe in the MLC conjecture about the Mandelbrot set, for no other reason than trust in the eye.

Jared Diamond: Humans first reached the continents of North America, South America, and Australia only very recently, at or near the end of the last Ice Age.


BillyJoe
 
CurtC said:
I believe that humans will never, ever, have self-sufficient, or even long-lasting but dependent, colonies anywhere except here on Earth.
Click to expand...

Why not? After all, to do so is quite straightforward; merely expensive.

As for the article - it's a fascinating mix of insight and moonbattery. (Who invited Sheldrake to the party?!)
 
PixyMisa said:
(Who invited Sheldrake to the party?!)
Click to expand...

You can blame John Brockman.

I believe that [these individuals] are the pre-eminent intellectuals of our time. But I can't prove it.

John Brockman
Publisher & Editor
Click to expand...
 
I know I can google it. I also know I won't understand it even if I did. I also know that I wouldn't understand your explanation if you chose to give one but, in simple layman's terms (hoping against hope).....

What is The Riemann Hypothesis?
 
I believe that I have dreams in which I see images, experience emotions, and that these dreams have "story-lines" similar to reality. Equipment can prove that certain brain activity is going on or that my eyes are moving, but nothing can prove that I "see" dreams. Nothing!

My belief that I experience dreams or that dreams even exist would be absolutely improvable under JREF challenge standards. Actually I think Randi and Kramer would just keep calling me a complete kook and suggest medical help if I claimed that I had "dreams". But we accept "dreams" as "real" because everyone experiences them.

I also believe that I have a "sensory experience". This is a tough idea to convey (my old philosophy teacher sure had a rough time of it). The idea is that when I look at something red, I "see" red. This would be compared to a computer with a light sensor hooked up to detect different light wave. The computer could "know" that something is red, just as I know that something is red, but the computer does not experience seeing "red" like I do. I believe that we have an "experience" of senses (touch taste, sight, hearing, etc.) that is entirely different from any non-natural equipment with the same detection capabilities.

In other words, if you made a computer that can identically carry out the exact same functions as my brain, would that computer "experience" sound or color as we do, and not just record that data without the "experience" of sensation. Tough question.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
In other words, if you made a computer that can identically carry out the exact same functions as my brain, would that computer "experience" sound or color as we do, and not just record that data without the "experience" of sensation. Tough question.
Click to expand...
I speak out of my nether-regions when I say that:
If there is ever such a thing as a nano-bot that can imitate any cell in the body then I reckon that a human body, from toes to top, could be re-built cell by cell in 3D space by the nano-bots and that nano-you would be exactly the same as you - alive and conscious.

It would need to get another account on this forum however, because that would be one heck of a sock-puppet!
 
BillyJoe said:
But only for a moment. [/B]
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose the bots to be able to imitate every function of every cell including all the comms between cells by hormones and electricity and ... and ... In other words everything needed to be alive.

(And my turn of phrase that caused you confusion was meant to indicate that I have no real understanding of nanotech!)
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I also believe that I have a "sensory experience". This is a tough idea to convey (my old philosophy teacher sure had a rough time of it). The idea is that when I look at something red, I "see" red. This would be compared to a computer with a light sensor hooked up to detect different light wave. The computer could "know" that something is red, just as I know that something is red, but the computer does not experience seeing "red" like I do. I believe that we have an "experience" of senses (touch taste, sight, hearing, etc.) that is entirely different from any non-natural equipment with the same detection capabilities.
Click to expand...

I believe what you are referring to is called 'the binding of sense and self' or something like it. The notion that we are aware and that we consider what senses to be 'us'.

So far I don't know of any good explanation for this.

Regarding my input (and this is risky to admit this here, but hey)

I believe that something which could be extrapolated to be a 'soul' exists, or, that its existance or nonexistance is unnecessary, for similar reasons to the relationship of the uncertainty principle and of free will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom