For the last eight years, Edge has published an annual “big” question for scientists, futurists, and other thinkers.

For 2005, the question is “What do you believe is true even though you can’t prove it?”.

Many of the responses are fascinating, and I think it’s fun for a layperson to read some of the brightest minds in academe and industry giving their personal take on a question that doesn’t have to be answered with rigor.

One in particular by Robert R. Provine leapt out at me because it’s something I’ve personally been thinking about a lot lately. In his short essay, Mr. Provine posits that human behavior is unconsciously controlled. It starts:

Until proven otherwise, why not assume that consciousness does not play a role in human behavior? Although it may seem radical on first hearing, this is actually the conservative position that makes the fewest assumptions. The null position is an antidote to philosopher’s disease, the inappropriate attribution of rational, conscious control over processes that may be irrational and unconscious. The argument here is not that we lack consciousness, but that we over-estimate the conscious control of behavior. I believe this statement to be true. But proving it is a challenge because it’s difficult to think about consciousness. We are misled by an inner voice that generates a reasonable but often fallacious narrative and explanation of our actions. That the beam of conscious awareness that illuminates our actions is on only part of the time further complicates the task. Since we are not conscious of our state of unconsciousness, we vastly overestimate the amount of time that we are aware of our own actions, whatever their cause.

The rest of his essay can be found here.