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

[The Grand Nudger]

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.