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

[abaris]

I'm not sure why you are quoting me here exactly.  I argued against and not for the reality of supernatural phenomena.

OK, then consider yourself unquoted, since I obviously misunderstood what you meant.

[Panatheist]

I cannot of course prove to others what kind of purely subjective experiences I have.  There are nevertheless reports of similar experiences that can be produced in various ways including electrical stimulation of parts of the brain.  My point here is that said experiences are different than merely being fanciful - they involve altered states.

-Some- of them do..but is there any reason for anyone to conclude that yours is one of them? Is there any reason for -you- to conclude that yours was one of them?  What equipment were you using to determine that you were in an altered state?  We also misremember and retcon with more than a trivial amount of regularity.  This is all ancillary to your experiences, or whatever they mean to you...nothing to do with it,. only giving you some insight as to why people can and rightly do dismiss these claims. You've read about altered states, and then assume you were in one, that your x was one of those x's........or is there more to the story?

I understand there is no necessary connection between skepticism of the paranormal and atheism and did not claim that.  Blackmore did become an atheist, yes, and she also generally became a skeptic of the paranormal.  In her case those two perspectives are related, but not in everyone.

Rgr, rgr, I thought that there was some significance there, in that you found it interesting.  What did you find interesting about it, specifically, btw?

I presume a waking experience involving a highly complex visual experience unrelated to my immediate environment involved a physical correlate in my brain. Likewise when this involves the (purely subjective) experience of being transported entirely to a different location. I call this an altered state because it is very different from how I usually perceive my reality.

Of course I cannot prove how I am experiencing the world anymore than you could prove you saw green aliens from Mars after ingesting acid. For that matter reports of life reviews in controlled settings correlated with stimulation of parts of the brain are not proof of said experiences, though the correlation is taken as evidence that the brain is involved in such states. We cannot even prove that we are conscious, but it is interesting then that so many people report that they are and that humans have written and talked about it for so long. It is not so much annoying if my experiences personally are dismissed - maybe a bit but it isn't important - but there is quite a bit of research on how to induce repeated reported altered perceptual phenomena that is being seriously engaged without resorting to the paranormal; such information can be valuable to those who are generally skeptical of supernatural claims.

Reading my post again I see how you could have thought I was making a necessary connection between atheism and skepticism of the paranormal. I don't think Blackmore was theistic in a traditional sense, but probably believed in some source or reality that could be called God, and she does describe herself as an atheist. All I meant is that she became an all-around skeptic to any sort of god, higher realm, the paranormal, all of that. Seems to me that she was pretty New Age.

[The Grand Nudger]

I presume a waking experience involving a highly complex visual experience unrelated to my immediate environment involved a physical correlate in my brain.  Likewise when this involves the (purely subjective) experience of being transported entirely to a different location.  I call this an altered state because it is very different from how I usually perceive my reality.

Without any way of actually measuring you presume too much.  

Of course I cannot prove how I am experiencing the world anymore than you could prove you saw green aliens from Mars after ingesting acid.

No one asked you to, as far as I know.  I snipped the rest because it was elaboration on this theme.  I only asked if you had any way of determining that your experience or memory of that experience was an altered state as theres is..not an altered state as in "it's different than the way I usually see the world".  That;s important...because you're drawing some sort of validity from those other "x"s without knowing whether or not yours actually -was- one of them...rather than any number of other common cognitive ticks present between all of our ears. I've been known to have fairly lucid daydreams, I've been known to misremember and conflate and combine, our outright -manufacture- experiences. I;ve heard things that weren;t there...and thought I saw things that went bump in the night.

Reading my post again I see how you could have thought I was making a necessary connection between atheism and skepticism of the paranormal.  I don't think Blackmore was theistic in a traditional sense, but probably believed in some source or reality that could be called God, and she does describe herself as an atheist.  All I meant is that she became an all-around skeptic to any sort of god, higher realm, the paranormal, all of that.  Seems to me that she was pretty New Age.

Now I get you.  You know what's interesting to me...that she was a researcher for two decades but not a skeptic.  How does that even work, right?

[Panatheist]

I presume a waking experience involving a highly complex visual experience unrelated to my immediate environment involved a physical correlate in my brain.  Likewise when this involves the (purely subjective) experience of being transported entirely to a different location.  I call this an altered state because it is very different from how I usually perceive my reality.

Without any way of actually measuring you presume too much.  

Of course I cannot prove how I am experiencing the world anymore than you could prove you saw green aliens from Mars after ingesting acid.

No one asked you to, as far as I know.  I snipped the rest because it was elaboration on this theme.  I only asked if you had any way of determining that your experience or memory of that experience was an altered state as theres is..not an altered state as in "it's different than the way I usually see the world".  That;s important...because you're drawing some sort of validity from those other "x"s without knowing whether or not yours actually -was- one of them...rather than any number of other common cognitive ticks present between all of our ears.

Reading my post again I see how you could have thought I was making a necessary connection between atheism and skepticism of the paranormal.  I don't think Blackmore was theistic in a traditional sense, but probably believed in some source or reality that could be called God, and she does describe herself as an atheist.  All I meant is that she became an all-around skeptic to any sort of god, higher realm, the paranormal, all of that.  Seems to me that she was pretty New Age.

Now I get you.  You know what's interesting to me...that she was a researcher for two decades but not a skeptic.  How does that even work, right?

She researched to verify her own interpretations of her experiences and became disillusioned over the years, so that was the original motivator.

I'm not sure what exactly an altered state would entail for you. To clarify I mean an altered state of perception. I can only assume that involves a physical correlate. Everything we are aware of does.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm afraid you might be equivocating over the term altered state.  That there is a nueral correlate does not imply or demonstrate that you were in an altered state during any of those experiences, whatever they were (and whatever they weren't).  Our brains do this sort of shit all the time.  It's not a bug, it's a feature, lol. I;m not in an altered state when I misremember having had a convo with the wife and only open my mouth to actually -speak- halfway through it (I can see her smirking now). I'm not in an altered state when something that isn;t in my closet goes bump, or when I see the great grey shape that makes men shiver sneak back behind the barn. That's standard operating procedure.

You have anecdotes about anamolous experiences (more accurately memories thereof)....but without some sort of equipment producing corroborating data, I can dismiss the notion that they were altered states as a poor inference with no evidence to back it.

[Panatheist]

I'm afraid you might be equivocating over the term altered state.  That there is a nueral correlate does not imply or demonstrate that you were in an altered state during any of those experiences, whatever they were (and whatever they weren't).  Our brains do this sort of shit all the time.  It's not a bug, it's a feature, lol. I;m not in an altered state when I misremember having had a convo with the wife and only open my mouth to actually -speak- halfway through it (I can see her smirking now). I'm not in an altered state when something that isn;t in my closet goes bump, or when I see the great grey shape that makes men shiver sneak back behind the barn. That's standard operating procedure.

You have anecdotes about anamolous experiences....but without some sort of equipment producing corroborating data, I can dismiss the notion that they were altered states as a poor inference.

Well, again, there is no way to prove it to anyone. But literally having the sensation of my environment disappearing and being replaced with an entirely different one on an island is always going to count as altered perception to me, not a mere misinterpretation or whatever. It's not even similar to you thinking you heard a bump in the closet. Much of my background and experience is similar to that of those who report symptoms of dissasociation which I have been treated for although I do not know if all or only some experiences are trauma-related. Some certainly seem to have been. Others, perhaps not. Who knows? Now someone may infer differently, sure, particularly since I am anonymous here - not that I will typically discuss such things when I'm not.

But it is really not as important on a personal level. I do think what research is being done on all sorts of reported experiences usually associated with the paranormal is important for skeptics. It certainly has helped me understand problems with basing supernatural beliefs on subjective experiences.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, again, there is no way to prove it to anyone.

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.  

But literally having the sensation of my environment disappearing and being replaced with an entirely different one on an island is always going to count as altered perception to me, not a mere misinterpretation or whatever.  It's not even similar to you thinking you heard a bump in the closet.

How could you know that, you didn't have any equipment present....you don't know the lucidity of my daydreams...and you can;t even establish that this was a genuine experience rather than a cognitive blip related to memory that you now relate to us.

Much of my background and experience is similar to that of those who report symptoms of dissasociation which I have been treated for although I do not know if all or only some experiences are trauma-related.  Some certainly seem to have been.  Others, perhaps not.  Who knows?  Now someone may infer differently, sure, particularly since I am anonymous here - not that I will typically discuss such things when I'm not.

I've had a disassociative break.  I've been diagnosed.  See..I do have experience with "experiences of this kind" - I;m not dismissing you out of hand, you're simply not presenting anything that we can work with.

But it is really not as important on a personal level.  I do think what research is being done on all sorts of reported experiences usually associated with the paranormal is important for skeptics.  It certainly has helped me understand problems with basing supernatural beliefs on subjective experiences.

There's also a problem in basing "natural beliefs" on anecdotal references to potential subjective experiences or memories of experiences. Such as the belief that you were in an altered state.

[Panatheist]

Well, again, there is no way to prove it to anyone.

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.  

But literally having the sensation of my environment disappearing and being replaced with an entirely different one on an island is always going to count as altered perception to me, not a mere misinterpretation or whatever.  It's not even similar to you thinking you heard a bump in the closet.

How could you know that, you didn't have any equipment present....you don't know the lucidity of my daydreams...and you can;t even establish that this was a genuine experience rather than a cognitive blip related to memory that you now relate to us.

Much of my background and experience is similar to that of those who report symptoms of dissasociation which I have been treated for although I do not know if all or only some experiences are trauma-related.  Some certainly seem to have been.  Others, perhaps not.  Who knows?  Now someone may infer differently, sure, particularly since I am anonymous here - not that I will typically discuss such things when I'm not.

I've had a disassociative break.  I've been diagnosed.  See..I do have experience with "experiences of this kind" - I;m not dismissing you out of hand, you're simply not presenting anything that we can work with.

But it is really not as important on a personal level.  I do think what research is being done on all sorts of reported experiences usually associated with the paranormal is important for skeptics.  It certainly has helped me understand problems with basing supernatural beliefs on subjective experiences.

There's also a problem in basing "natural beliefs" on anecdotal references to potential subjective experiences or memories of experiences. Such as the belief that you were in an altered state.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

[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.

[bennyboy]

^ +1

This is the essence of the religion-as-experience debate. If people want to attribute their experiences TO SOMETHING, they have to show that they're making a correct attribution. Christians don't do that.