Let us examine the following familiar syllogism: 1)
All men are mortal, 2) Socrates is a man, 3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal. This
syllogism is logically sound, and it can be reasonably seen why the conclusion
follows from the premises. But, how exactly is it the case that we reasonably
deduce the conclusion? Well, it’s the case because we understand the semantics
behind every proposition in the syllogism. That is, we clearly comprehend what
1) and 2) mean, and we logically
deduce the third proposition (the conclusion) based on the meaning of the preceding premises. This is the process of
reasoning, namely, making deductions based on the semantic content of previous
concepts, propositions or ideas. Thus stated, our deduction from 1) and 2) to
3) is based on meaning, semantics, and
reason.
Now what is going on psychologically when we make
our way, logically, through this line of reasoning? Well, we have a brain state
and a mental state associated with upholding premise 1), and the same with
regards to 2) and 3). The brain state is just what is happening
electrochemically in my brain when I uphold a certain proposition or thought,
and the mental state is the associated with the actual mental apprehension of
said proposition or thought. (Note: even if one is an eliminative materialist
and therefore doesn’t believe mental states exist, the distinction between
brain and mental states is not crucial to my present argument, and would
actually make the force of the argument stronger.) It should be obvious that
brain states and mental states are different with regards to the different
propositions we are upholding. That is to say, the brain state and mental state
we have for 1), will be different from the brain and mental state we have for
2), and 3).
However, one immediately encounters a problem with
the above promulgations if one is a naturalist. Why? Well, remember that a
naturalist believes that all that exists is mindless matter, or energy,
governed by the laws of physics. A corollary of this is that any thoughts (and,
therefore, any mental states) are ultimately the result of physical processes
swinging to the tune of physics. But, this means that the mental states
associated with upholding 1), 2) and 3) are ultimately grounded in, and caused by, the electrochemical properties
of brain states. A consequence of this is that when the brain
state associated with 3) succeeds 2), which succeeds 1), this succession was
the result of only physical laws acting
on the matter that makes up these brain states.
But, this completely conflicts with what we
expounded above, namely, that is it the meaning and semantics associated with
our syllogism that causes us to arrive at such a deduction. On the naturalistic
account of the world, when one makes their way down the syllogism, it is not
the meaning or semantics that leads one there, but, rather, purely mindless electrochemical processes. But this
means that, on naturalism, it is not reason--
making deductions based on the semantic content of previous concepts,
propositions or ideas—that grounds our thinking. In fact, based on what we’ve
discovered, there is no room for such a
thing as reason on naturalism!
The naturalist position, then, results in a reductio ad absurdum. That is, if naturalism were true, then we could
not reason, which means we could not arrive at
the conclusion of naturalism, since to do so would require reasoning deductively. Naturalism, therefore, cannot possibly be
true.
No comments:
Post a Comment