Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[bennyboy]

Another thing I've realised based on this is that since it is my firm conviction that in terms of the mind, phenomenal representations+dynamics and neural representations+dynamics are equivalent... two sides of the same coin...  that each informs and predicts the other, it therefore follows that I should be able to use them interchangeably (and if I can't, it suggests a problem with the theory). Therefore in the interests of clarity all round I think it makes more sense to only speak of phenomenal representations/dynamics in any premises/conclusions that rely on them, by finding common sense examples that everyone can agree on of the phenomenal/NN dynamics I have in mind. In other words, I should never need to mention neurons again... which only serve to confuse an issue... because talking about phenomena is talking about the same thing under my view.

It think your view is close to Rhythm's: that mind isn't a property OF brain function, it IS the brain function. I'd say given that view, then you couldn't allow for any lag, delay, or difference between the neural function and the experience-- i.e. what you are saying would be correct.

Anyway, onto your question; I make no claims (as yet) as to whether it represents truth. Ultimately I agree with you that we can't know if we're in the Matrix (or suchlike) or not so perhaps a good starting point is to refer to the external world as the environment we find ourselves in regardless of what's outside of that, if anything? As such it appears to me that any claims about 'truth' can only be in reference to that environment... anything outside of that has to be a position of 'scepticism' ie we can't know.

With this I agree. I call it truth-in-context, and Rhythm and I have been arguing about it.

So if 'absolute' truth is defined as including outside of the environment, then I don't believe it can be known. If it's not defined like that, and only refers to the environment, then I think the question is open to debate, probably coming down to the difference between direct and indirect realism. Does that answer your question, or at least start to? As I said, I'm not entirely sure of my position yet, because I'm essentially just being introduced to the material, but I would expect my stance to develop more strongly over the coming months as I study epistemology.

Well, why don't you go a couple pages back and see whether you prefer my idea of truth-in-context, which seems supported by your last idea, or "just truth" as supported by your first view about the brain and agreed with by Rhythm?


edit:
Also: Welcome back!