One variation of naturalism that has become popularized by the development of neuroscience is the notion that one's nervous system constructs reality. In other words, according to this asinine ideology, nothing it objectively knowable in itself, and nothing necessarily exists apart from the nervous system. Riddled with errors, the "nervous system construct" conception of metaphysics is rather easy to defeat. If even one thing exists independently from the nervous system or from matter itself, the entire concept is refuted in full. There is such a thing: the laws of logic.
There is no being, particle of matter, or other existent (i.e. time or space) that the existence of logic hinges upon. As such, logic cannot possibly be a construct of either the nervous system or a mind (human or divine), for it exists in the absence of both. It alone exists strictly due to its own intrinsic necessity [1]. Truth, being nothing but a function of logic, therefore cannot depend on the nervous system or on any other thing for its necessary existence.
Even if these facts are set aside despite them showing that it is impossible for the "nervous system construct" idea of reality to be true, there are numerous other problems with this asinine belief. The unverifiable nature of the nervous system's very existence is a prominent one. No one can even prove to me that I have a brain, much less that the brain has a
causal connection to the mind (only a
very strong correlation can be demonstrated). Some mistakenly hold that the very existence of matter is unverifiable, but this is not the case [2]; however, it does not follow from the mere existence of matter that the nervous system itself exists.
Consciousness, unlike the seeming existence of the nervous system, cannot be an illusion, being one of only a handful of metaphysical existents (including logic) that cannot be illusory by nature of what they are. In contrast, most facts about one's body are ultimately unknown. There is no way to truly know the interior of one's body, which renders the issue of the nervous system's very existence unsettled; beyond the fact that some sort of matter is real and that my consciousness inhabits a physical shell, only perceptions of what that body is like can be verified. While matter
does exist, the only things comprised of matter that I can
know the existence of are my body (again, see [2]) and some sort of external world beyond it. There is no proof that the brain, neurons, or the spinal cord exist, only mere evidence based on sensory perceptions that are subject to potential change at any time.
Naturalism is refuted in whole by the existence of even a single immaterial thing. The laws of logic alone, being both intangible and necessary even in the absence of matter, falsify naturalism. The existence of one's consciousness, which is required to even grasp the independent laws of logic, likewise falsifies naturalism. One does not even need to continue listing nonphysical existents like time and the space that holds matter to demonstrate that it is utterly impossible for everything that exists to be physical. Reality is not a construct of the nervous system, and reason, the core of reality, is itself immaterial.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
[1].
https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html[2].
https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/matter-is-not-illusion.html
