Argument From Incredulity

The idea is promoted with the assumption that consciousness from physical processes is beyond credulity.

There are reasons for it beyond "I just can't believe it"

Just as an example, Jim Al-Khalili is quite famous in the UK as a science presenter on TV. He is (or was) also president of the UK Humanists so not some new-age fantasist. He caused a ripple of controversy with a book he co-authored with Johnjoe McFadden on the apparent utilisation of quantum effects by living organisms.

http://discovermagazine.com/2014/dec/17-...antum-life

The proposal was scoffed at, however, sparking incredulity from both biologists and physicists because quantum effects supposedly hold sway only on the smallest scales and cannot govern large biological molecules.

Indeed, quantum mechanics is the source of much incredulity among physicists with the realist camp still trying to force-fit it into classical mechanics. Yet it remains "weird" despite those efforts. Consciousness is another area of controversy but I imagine the thinkers and researchers who study the "hard" problem would not appreciate being dismissed with the hand-wave of a common logical fallacy.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015...sciousness

My point was that incredulity may be justified when it comes to considering the explanations being offered.

It has to be.  There is no other way to make decisions in life other than to pick the option that seems most credible and therefore to reject the options that seem least credible.  That is always how the brain decides what is true and what isn't.  If somebody said to you "A million pounds will appear in your bank account if you sing the national anthem backwards with your head under water," would you do it?  The mandela effect comes to mind as an example of not using incredulity ... "I don't remember it that way, therefore somebody is using quantum computers to mess with reality."

If somebody said to you "A million pounds will appear in your bank account if you sing the national anthem backwards with your head under water," would you do it?

Not sure I could manage that, with or without the million pounds. It might induce a Near-Death Experience though.

There are reasons for it beyond "I just can't believe it"

Yes. There’s framing the argument with (pseudo)profound language and the setting of parameters and definitions in an arbitrary manner.

It has to be.  There is no other way to make decisions in life other than to pick the option that seems most credible and therefore to reject the options that seem least credible.  That is always how the brain decides what is true and what isn't.   

Interesting that you wrote “how the brain decides” ? 

But yes, I have a persistent incredulity that human senses can function in the absence of a functioning human sensory system. This is partly based on extensive study of the known physical processes involved with that sort of interaction with our environment.

My point was that incredulity may be justified when it comes to considering the explanations being offered.

The existence of a phenomena and it’s explanation are in different categories. A category error would be to dismiss many reports of psi just because no detailed mechanism or explanation has been put forward.

The existence of a phenomena and it’s explanation are in different categories. A category error would be to dismiss many reports of psi just because no detailed mechanism or explanation has been put forward.

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.

Interesting that you wrote “how the brain decides” ? 

But yes, I have a persistent incredulity that human senses can function in the absence of a functioning human sensory system. This is partly based on extensive study of the known physical processes involved with that sort of interaction with our environment.

Clearly there are different ways to use the word incredulity. I'm assuming your use of it here is as a synonym for doubt or scepticism? But, as I mentioned above, other synonyms include amazement, wonder, etc.

By the way, and this is again beyond the scope of this particular thread, your response exhibits an exclusive commitment to physicalism. It doesn't matter how extensive your study if you start with an assumption and ignore other possibilities.

Interesting that you wrote “how the brain decides” ? 

But yes, I have a persistent incredulity that human senses can function in the absence of a functioning human sensory system. This is partly based on extensive study of the known physical processes involved with that sort of interaction with our environment.

Did you think I believed something different?