Argument From Incredulity

I have to say I’ve never heard anyone use the “argument from incredulity” about the so-called hard problem in any sensible discussion.

I have to say I’ve never heard anyone use the “argument from incredulity” about the so-called hard problem in any sensible discussion.

A recent example. The "argument from personal incredulity" is also as an argument from ignorance 

In my metaphysics, mind is fundamental; it is the source of meaning and the creative imperative. In a new thread (started yesterday) I posted some video clips of the inner workings of the cell. To me it seems inconceivable that those complex workings have no organising "director" - and for me that "director" is mind.

["The "Argument from Personal Incredulity" logical fallacy is when the offender argues that something is false because they do not see how it could be true. It is a form of an argument from ignorance fallacy - basically making a judgement on the truthfulness of a claim based on lack of information or understanding."]

It most often shows up in materialism vs. immaterialism argument.

I have to say I’ve never heard anyone use the “argument from incredulity” about the so-called hard problem in any sensible discussion.

That’s pretty much all it is IMO. Perhaps those who promote the hard problem have a very narrow-minded view of what awareness is, and struggle to see that.

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

That’s pretty much all it is IMO. Perhaps those who promote the hard problem have a very narrow-minded view of what awareness is, and struggle to see that.

I don’t think so. You’d have to exclude all the other evidence of consciousness existing without a brain to argue incredulity is all that remains.

I don’t think so. You’d have to exclude all the other evidence of consciousness existing without a brain to argue incredulity is all that remains.

The "hard problem" as defined by David Chalmers is: how and why does the brain create consciousness?  It does not address what is known as non local consciousness. An interview with David where he talks about what he thinks on a personal level
.https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro...ally-hard/

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

And I'm not necessarily arguing that the argument from incredulity isn't sometimes used ... just that it might be appropriate even if logically flawed. Even then I am not sure of the logic. Does the logic assume an already existing (and complete) explanation? If so, how do we evaluate that explanation? Is that perhaps flawed if it rests on unwarranted assumptions?