(2018-08-04, 07:46 PM)CKamarling Wrote: What would you call denying the existence of the hard problem because it doesn't fit your favoured explanation? The problem and the explanation are, of course, linked.
I really don't want to get bogged down with semantics or arguments about what is or isn't a logical fallacy. The reason I used the example was to demonstrate that incredulity - amazement, wonder, marvelling - is appropriate given the explanation (or lack-of) being offered.
A living organism is a wondrous thing, a fantastic combination of organisation, control systems and organic machinery functioning in exquisite harmony. No human feat of design and engineering comes remotely close. That organism - any organism - is made of cells and the cells themselves are amazing in their complex functions and efficiency. Yet cells have been around since the first living organisms. DNA, the most complex molecule we know, is in every cell.
When you watch those videos already posted here, are you not incredulous too? We can argue about the mechanisms of evolution in the other thread (although DNA should probably be considered as pre-evolution in darwinian terms) but my objective in this thread was to begin to highlight how amazing life is. To dismiss that amazement as a logical fallacy is just cynical arrogance.
I’m not denying the existence of the hard problem due to any pre existing views on the nature of reality. I’m saying, in line with other philosophers, that it’s a flawed argument.
And I have no problem with wonder and amazement. The chemistry of life is incredible
