What philosophical evidence is there against believing in non-physical entities?

[Panatheist]

I referenced the inability to prove my own past subjective experiences to anyone - because there is not.  And I am not saying that - you - personally have not experienced dissosociation or some other phenomena involving unusual visual and audial perception.

This is, I think, the third time you've mentioned it, but again..no ones asked you to prove your subjective experiences.  You presented conclusions -about them- that you cannot support.  This is what people are dismissing, when they dismiss them.  

Now, various definitions are given for altered states.  I have mentioned unusual perceptual phenomena such as seeming to appear on an island as an example.  Now I highly doubt this is a day dream because it occurred in a busy work environment and caused disruption until I was able to perceive my surroundings again.  That would likely be classified as a hallucination by therapists  which is included in some definitions of altered states.  In some definitions of altered states are included dreams and day dreams  and states induced after meditating, drinking an alcoholic beverage, or taking drugs.  What exactly is your definition of an altered state?

You highly doubt it was a daydream because it busy work environment?  That's the prime location for daydreaming...where most people -do- the majority of their daydreaming.  It;s pretty much a cultural meme to daydream at work, at this point.  This is a very common experience, that you doubt.

I agree that you have a point about false or inaccurate memories.  Perhaps I am simply not remembering this accurately -- doubtful given my history I think and some level of verification I have been able to obtain from others that I behaved in some cases as though I was totally unaware of my environment, unless all of that is a case of inaccurate memory as well or a mistaken observation.  It is possible my dreams never had the content I think I recall -- they are all false memories.

Again, you find yourself doubting something so common and everyday as to be called ubiquitous.  Daydreamers are also "totally unaware of their environment"...that's why we call them daydreamers.  

Even equipment cannot prove anyone is experiencing certain subjective sensations.  At most we get a report of them.

Irrelevant with regards to your conclusions regarding your proposed experience, but obviously used to buttress your inability to flesh them out.  Again, this is the sort of thing that gets dismissed.

It is just as much of a problem if you base a natural belief that you actually experienced a particular vivid day dream on the fact that you think you remember it.

To take an even more startling viewpoint it is possible that my whole life up to this point is simply a dream and that I will wake up soon.

There is an element of belief in what we think we remember and even in what we hold as most certain.  There is no problem there at all as long as we acknowledge that.

So, as fallible as memory can be....and as explicable as your experience may be by other means, and regardless of the fact that you had no equipment to record any altered state......that's what you go with?  Again, not doubting that you had an experience or that you have a memory of an experience.....I'm just showing you why those propositions you've built -atop- that experience are dismissed...which you interpret as people dismissing your experience. If you can keep all of that in mind...you -might- find that it doesn't bother you at all when people do it. They're justified in doing so.

You specifically mentioned that there is a way to prove altered states after I mentioned that I cannot prove my own. I am not sure why you keep saying no one asked me to prove them. I did not say you asked me that. I am simply making a statement that I cannot personally prove that. In fact there is no way to prove that anyone is experiencing altered states or any subjective states. At most we can get a correlation between certain physical brain states and reported subjective states.

I have said it is - slightly - annoying to have personal experiences dismissed. I have gone on to say that it is not actually a huge problem if mine are dismissed personally but that such phenomena are useful to consider in general when research into them gives us good evidence for non-supernatural reasons for their existence.

And no, I do not believe I was day dreaming when I was extremely busy working at the time in the fast food industry. I believe it was altered perceptual and audial phenomena combined with a loss of awareness of any sensations in my immediate environment. That is an example of what I mean by an altered state. A day dream would qualify, too, so it's sort of pointless to debate.

I was looking for some better articles, but these two provide some definition with examples of an altered state of consciousness:

http://study.com/academy/lesson/altered-...-quiz.html

http://www.veryshortintroductions.com/vi...-chapter-7

I am not sure how profitable it is to debate this issue if I don't know what you mean by altered state of consciousness. You seem to be excluding a day dream as an altered state for example, but I have seen that mentioned as an example of an altered state many times in articles and literature on psychology.

As for what conclusions I have come to that are dismissed besides thinking it was an altered states, do you mention that some of them were healing? I am not going to go into huge detail, but some of them directly involved addressing certain emotions and integrating new perspectives on them. I'm not sure what to say other than that some were very cathartic and resolved some emotional issues for me, so I said it was healing. That is how I remember experiencing it. It could simply be a correlation and not causal, although that is not how I think of it when I process emotions in a more mundane way. I could say writing a journal entry was cathartic and healing. But perhaps that was correlative as well. I am not saying I have absolute certainty.

I mention the fallibility of our memory and of our certainty in general because it was a good point you made, but it doesn't just apply to experiences that seem unusual. It applies to mundane events and to more common altered states as well, the content of your day dreams included. You cannot know you accurately remember the content of that state any more than I accurately recall the state I described.

I am really curious what you define an altered state as.

Note: the above statement I made about altered visual and audial perception could apply to a day dream, although I usually think of day dreams as occurring while I am still and gazing out of a window. In this experience I seemed to be transported to the island and then back to my immediate environment several times abruptly again and again over about a half hour's duration and there were other attendant experiences. This is more in line with what I think of as a disruptive hallucination, not a day dream.

[The Grand Nudger]

You specifically mentioned that there is a way to prove altered states after I mentioned that I cannot prove my own.

No, you keep telling me that you (and no one) can prove their subjective experiences.  I could quote you....but I shouldn't have to.

  I am not sure why you keep saying no one asked me to prove them. I did not say you asked me that.  I am simply making a statement that I cannot personally prove that.

You keep saying that you cannot prove your subjective experiences.

In fact there is no way to prove that anyone is experiencing altered states

OFC there is.....you referenced it yourself.  

or any subjective states.

-no one's asked you to do so, for the last time.

At most we can get a correlation between certain physical brain states and reported subjective states.

Irrelevant with regards to altered states.

I have said it is - slightly - annoying to have personal experiences dismissed.

You said you-strongly- disliked it.

I have gone on to say that it is not actually a huge problem if mine are dismissed personally but that such phenomena are useful to consider in general when research into them gives us good evidence for non-supernatural reasons for their existence.

And no, I do not believe I was day dreaming when I was extremely busy working at the time in the fast food industry.  I believe it was altered perceptual and audial phenomena combined with a loss of awareness of any sensations in my immediate environment.  That is an example of what I mean by an altered state.  A day dream would qualify, too, so it's sort of pointless to debate.

Beliefs are about as useful as anecdotes.  As I said, you;ve been equivocating on the term altered state.  The altered states you are referring to when you point to research are not simply daydreaming, or seeing things in a novel way - though some think that either of those might -cause- altered states.

I was looking for some better articles, but these two provide some definition with examples of an altered state of consciousness:

http://study.com/academy/lesson/altered-...-quiz.html

http://www.veryshortintroductions.com/vi...-chapter-7

I am not sure how profitable it is to debate this issue if I don't know what you mean by altered state of consciousness.  You seem to be excluding a day dream as an altered state for example, but I have seen that mentioned as an example of an altered state many times in articles and literature on psychology.

So maybe you were daydreaming, as long as it's an altered state?  Work with me...lol.

As for what conclusions I have come to that are dismissed besides thinking it was an altered states, do you mention that some of them were healing?  I am not going to go into huge detail, but some of them directly involved addressing certain emotions and integrating new perspectives on them.  I'm not sure what to say other than that some were very cathartic and resolved some emotional issues for me, so I said it was healing.  That is how I remember experiencing it.

They needn't have happened as you remember them, nor do they need to be altered states...for them to be cathartic.  You say they were healing, and that;s okay..only you would know that...but that doesn;t mean that your attriubution is correct..in fact it has nothing to do with or to say on -that- matter...which is the matter I dismiss.

I mention the fallibility of our memory and of our certainty in general because it was a good point you made, but it doesn't just apply to experiences that seem unusual.  It applies to mundane events and to more common altered states as well, the content of your day dreams included.  You cannot know you accurately remember the content of that state any more than I accurately recall the state I described.

I am really curious what you define an altered state as.

An altered state of consciousness (ASC), also called altered state of mind or mind alteration, is any condition which is significantly different from a normal waking beta wave state. The expression was used as early as 1966 by Arnold M. Ludwig and brought into common usage from 1969 by Charles Tart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_state_of_consciousness

[Panatheist]

I had edited my previous post and then saw this reply, but I don't think the changes were that substantial except a note I included at the bottom about why I think I was not daydreaming.

I didn't go back and say *maybe* I was day dreaming as long as it's an altered state. I mentioned day dreaming as an example of an altered state because you had excluded it as qualifying as one and did not define what you considered to be an altered state of mind. But it is one even according to the definition you provided. Day dreaming occurs in the theta wave state.

Really, by your argument it would be unsupportable for me to ever claim to have day dreamed since I could not at the time measure my brain to determine if I was in the theta brain wave state.

I am having trouble with the quote button not being as familiar with this forum. You made a statement a few posts back I took to be a reference to subjective states although perhaps you were referring only to physical changes in the brain which unlike reported subjective states are demonstrable and with which I would agree:

"Yes, there is, you referenced it yourself, in that altered states have been recorded. There's no way for -you- to do so because you are referring to anecdotes. You did not have any equipment available. As such I can't know that they -were- altered states in the sense you previously referenced, and neither can you."

I have been describing experiences especially those involving unusual audial and visual perceptions as altered states. Hallucinations are mentioned as examples of altered states in psychological literature, but no, I cannot prove that I was not in the Beta state. I have had an EEG scan before which did detect unusual electrical activity during a time when I was having some less intense unusual perceptual experiences, although I do not know what it involved.

If I understand your argument correctly it seems to me that no one should claim that (s)he has ever experienced an altered state, even day dreaming, without having their brain activity measured during that experience.

[The Grand Nudger]

I had edited my previous post and then saw this reply, but I don't think the changes were that substantial except a note I included at the bottom about why I think I was not daydreaming.

I didn't go back and say *maybe* I was day dreaming as long as it's an altered state.  I mentioned day dreaming as an example of an altered state because you had excluded it as qualifying as one and did not define what you considered to be an altered state of mind.  But it is one even according to the definition you provided.  Day dreaming occurs in the theta wave state.

No, you didn't say that, I did....just trying to negotiate an equitable split.  

Really, by your argument it would be unsupportable for me to ever claim to have day dreamed since I could not at the time measure my brain to determine if I was in the theta brain wave state.

You -would- be unable to support it, but I can accept that you daydream.  

I am having trouble with the quote button not being as familiar with this forum.  You made a statement a few posts back I took to be a reference to subjective states although perhaps you were referring only to physical changes in the brain which unlike reported subjective states are demonstrable and with which I would agree:

"Yes, there is, you referenced it yourself, in that altered states have been recorded.  There's no way for -you- to do so because you are referring to anecdotes.  You did not have any equipment available.  As such I can't know that they -were- altered states in the sense you previously referenced, and neither can you."

I have been describing experiences especially those involving unusual audial and visual perceptions as altered states.  Hallucinations are mentioned as examples of altered states in psychological literature, but no, I cannot prove that I was not in the Beta state.  I have had an EEG scan before which did detect unusual electrical activity during a time when I was having some less intense unusual perceptual experiences, although I do not know what it involved.

If I understand your argument correctly it seems to me that no one should claim that (s)he has ever experienced an altered state, even day dreaming, without having their brain activity measured during that experience.

That would be incorrect.   I can dismiss your attribution because you have failed to verify it, had no means to verify it, and made poor inferences to arrive at it as a conclusion.  It has nothing to do with whether or not you've ever experienced an altered state...whether or not you've ever daydreamed...none of that.  It's a poor attribution, with only your anecdote to go on. This is what is being dismissed.

[Panatheist]

I had edited my previous post and then saw this reply, but I don't think the changes were that substantial except a note I included at the bottom about why I think I was not daydreaming.

I didn't go back and say *maybe* I was day dreaming as long as it's an altered state.  I mentioned day dreaming as an example of an altered state because you had excluded it as qualifying as one and did not define what you considered to be an altered state of mind.  But it is one even according to the definition you provided.  Day dreaming occurs in the theta wave state.

No, you didn't say that, I did....just trying to negotiate an equitable split.  

Really, by your argument it would be unsupportable for me to ever claim to have day dreamed since I could not at the time measure my brain to determine if I was in the theta brain wave state.

You -would- be unable to support it, but I can accept that you daydream.  

I am having trouble with the quote button not being as familiar with this forum.  You made a statement a few posts back I took to be a reference to subjective states although perhaps you were referring only to physical changes in the brain which unlike reported subjective states are demonstrable and with which I would agree:

"Yes, there is, you referenced it yourself, in that altered states have been recorded.  There's no way for -you- to do so because you are referring to anecdotes.  You did not have any equipment available.  As such I can't know that they -were- altered states in the sense you previously referenced, and neither can you."

I have been describing experiences especially those involving unusual audial and visual perceptions as altered states.  Hallucinations are mentioned as examples of altered states in psychological literature, but no, I cannot prove that I was not in the Beta state.  I have had an EEG scan before which did detect unusual electrical activity during a time when I was having some less intense unusual perceptual experiences, although I do not know what it involved.

If I understand your argument correctly it seems to me that no one should claim that (s)he has ever experienced an altered state, even day dreaming, without having their brain activity measured during that experience.

That would be incorrect.   I can dismiss your attribution because you have failed to verify it, had no means to verify it, and made poor inferences to arrive at it as a conclusion.  It has nothing to do with whether or not you've ever experienced an altered state...whether or not you've ever daydreamed...none of that.  It's a poor attribution, with only your anecdote to go on.  This is what is being dismissed.

The attribution of the experience to an altered state?  I specifically used the term altered state to describe very unusual perceptual phenomena and said that anything I am experiencing subjectively including such perceptual phenomena must have a physical correlation to a state in the brain.  I didn't say what brain state or that I knew what brain state, just that there has to be a correlate in the brain to anything I am aware of.  I don't know what else could be said about that or what an atheist who doesn't believe in the supernatural could disagree with about that, honestly.

And I'm still not sure why day dreams are being treated differently in this discussion even though they actually fit the definition you have recently given.

[bennyboy]

I'd like to weigh in on a tangent.

I've had a fair number of experiences which I think OTHERS would call paranormal, spiritual, religious, etc. These are pretty compelling experiences, as well-- much more than hairs standing up on the neck. We're talking clouds opening, beams of light shining down, interaction with apparent other entities, etc.

In same cases, these experiences come with some form or other of coherence-- there are rules which the experiences seem to follow, or patterns among sets of experiences which link them in some way. And in some cases, they share coherence with the rest of my life/world view. For example, I've experienced under LSD the effects of synaesthesia, where I smelled things I saw, saw sounds, etc. I've experienced lucid dreams in which I was able to very vividly and in details hear how musical instruments would blend together, something I have difficulty doing in waking life.

I'm not so sure that in these cases it matters so much whether the ideas and experiences come from an objective reality or from something exclusively in my own brain-- I suspect the neural correlates would be very similar.

/disjointed ramblings about experiences

[Losty]

I have, in the past, had many hundreds of experiences where I could see, hear, smell, and even touch a person who was known for a fact to not have been there. Then Instarted taking risperdal in small doses. Now that almost never happens. (Like only twice ever since I started taking it).

I never suspect anyone is lying about whatever experiences they say they've had. I just often think it doesn't likely mean whatever they think it means...

[robvalue]

Indeed. "Are you calling me a liar" is entirely the wrong question.

[The Grand Nudger]

The attribution of the experience to an altered state?  I specifically used the term altered state to describe very unusual perceptual phenomena and said that anything I am experiencing subjectively including such perceptual phenomena must have a physical correlation to a state in the brain.

Which is an awful lot of wiggle room for an altered state.  I see things in novel ways, ways that I don't normally see the them, all the time. Is this an altered state, do you feel that I would be justified in claiming that I am experiencing altered states?

I didn't say what brain state or that I knew what brain state, just that there has to be a correlate in the brain to anything I am aware of.  I don't know what else could be said about that or what an atheist who doesn't believe in the supernatural could disagree with about that, honestly.

To say that there has to be a nueral correlate is to say nothing at all (between the two of us, anyway), and you've said a great deal more than just that, cmon now.  

And I'm still not sure why day dreams are being treated differently in this discussion even though they actually fit the definition you have recently given.

Were you daydreaming?

[robvalue]

Everything we experience is in an altered state. It's gone through at least two filters, and reproduced in a virtual environment. We never get to directly experience anything. We can only make reasonable inferences about the things we appear to be experiencing.