Does anything non-physical exists? Can scientists even deal with the non-physical?

[AgnosticBoy]

The non-physical is a topic that peaks my interest because it involves so many different phenomenon and it has huge implications. It mostly involves a lot of phenomenon that we find in religion, like spiritual beings, ghosts, spiritual/afterlife places, but it also involves more down-to-earth stuff like consciousness, OBEs, NDEs, etc.

One common example that comes up a lot is subjective experience. I would imagine that some reasons for seeing subjective experience as non-physical is because it lacks some of the physical characteristics that we usually use to call something physical, such as not being observable, not being real in some cases (hallucinations) which then means it doesn't exist in physical space, etc.

This discussion may start off from a philosophical standpoint but I welcome any religious and scientific perspective that could shed light on showing that non-physical things exist or don't exists.



For Discussion:
1. Does the non-physical exists? Are there any examples? To get to specifics, please explain why or how subjective experience, OBEs, and NDEs are physical or non-physical.
2. Theoretically-speaking, is it impossible for the non-physical to exist?
3. Can science deal with the non-physical existence? Why or why not?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

AB, I think an important distinction in our discussion is that my argument isn’t about internal vs. external consciousness—I'm open to either possibility. Instead, I’m questioning the need to categorize OBEs as 'nonphysical' in the first place.

We both acknowledge that OBEs occur. I even accept them based on personal experience, including physical interactions. But just because we don’t fully understand the mechanics behind them doesn’t mean we should assume they involve something 'nonphysical' in the metaphysical sense.


There’s a common assumption that if we can’t directly measure or observe something using current scientific methods, it must belong to a 'nonphysical' domain. But that’s not necessarily the case. History has repeatedly shown that things once thought to be beyond material explanation—like electromagnetism or quantum mechanics—were later understood within an expanded model of physical reality. Consciousness, including OBEs, might be another example of something we just don’t yet fully grasp within the material framework.


So my question is this:

What specifically requires OBEs to be classified as 'nonphysical'? Why must the unknown be placed in that category rather than considered an undiscovered aspect of material reality?

[highlights added on]

As I've brought up in the OP, consciousness is thought by some to be non-physical because we can not observe nor detect it in any direct way. But some materialists and even others I consider agnostic thinkers such as William have claimed that it is physical or that it could be something that we haven't fully explained and observed yet. This is a very fair point, especially given the history of claims for the non-physical that William explains in his post.

My reasoning might sound like an argument just from definition, but if it is such, it's really the descriptive type in that it refers to actual phenomenon or describes how subjective experience works. So one reason I accept subjective experience to be non-physical is because of the distinction between subjective and objective. If something is physical or could be confirmed as such, then it would have to be objective - anyone can see it - goes with third-person point of view. When it comes to subjective experiences, they are private and don't exist physically like other physical objects would (a chair, a rock, etc).

Another reason I accept that subjective experience is non-physical is because of the distinction between real and unreal. For something to be physical or be confirmed as such, it would have to be real. Say for instance, I imagine or hallucinate a dog in my living room. Of course, the dog is not really there. The dog doesn't really exists so there's nothing physical to examine. Now although we can say that my brain is a physical organ that generates this experience, but just because something is caused (which is speculative and not fully explained) by a physical process doesn't mean that the effect will be all the same. We know it's not the same since the make of up neurons and their activity is different than what's actually being experienced.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I asked ChatGPT about hallucinations and their nature. I was shocked to find that it shared some of the same views I had whereas in a previous interaction last year, it had a different response. I'll share them because they were helpful and shed light on the debate regarding the non-physical.

Me: Are hallucinations physical or non-physical?

ChatGPT: Hallucinations are non-physical in nature because they occur in the mind without any external stimulus causing them. They are perceptual experiences—seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, or tasting something that isn’t actually there. However, they have a physical basis in the brain, often linked to neural activity, chemical imbalances, or disorders affecting sensory processing.

In short, hallucinations are non-physical experiences with physical causes.

• While the cause of hallucinations is physical (brain chemistry, neural misfiring), the experience itself remains non-physical—meaning it cannot be touched, weighed, or measured like a physical object.
• Some people blur this distinction and assume that because the cause is physical, the experience must be as well.

Me: Why are they non-physical?

ChatGPT: Hallucinations are non-physical because they do not exist as external, objective phenomena in the physical world. Instead, they are subjective experiences generated by the brain without corresponding external stimuli.

Here’s why hallucinations are considered non-physical:

1. Lack of External Reality – If one person hallucinates a voice, others in the same environment do not hear it, because the sound waves do not exist outside the person's mind.
2. Internal Perception – Unlike physical objects, which can be measured, touched, or recorded, hallucinations exist only in the experiencer's perception and cannot be objectively detected by external instruments (e.g., cameras, microphones).
3. Brain-Dependent – Hallucinations arise from neural activity, often due to chemical imbalances, sensory deprivation, or neurological disorders. Since they are generated internally, they are not physical objects but mental experiences.
4. No Direct Physical Interaction – Physical entities interact with the world in observable ways. A hallucinated object does not exert force, cast a shadow, or block light like a real object would.

Even though hallucinations originate from physical processes in the brain, the experiences themselves remain non-physical because they lack external, objective existence.

While non-physical things do not have mass, shape, or location in space, they still play a crucial role in reality, especially in human cognition and experience.

Me: Why do people say they are physical?

ChatGPT: People sometimes say that non-physical things, like thoughts or hallucinations, are physical because they are closely tied to physical processes, particularly in the brain. Here are some reasons why people might argue that hallucinations (or other mental phenomena) are physical:

• Every thought, feeling, or hallucination corresponds to neural activity in the brain. Scientists can observe certain brain regions activating during hallucinations using fMRI or EEG scans.
• Since the brain is a physical organ, some argue that its processes—including hallucinations—are fundamentally physical.

• Some philosophers and scientists hold a physicalist or materialist perspective, which states that everything that exists is ultimately physical, including mental states.
• In this view, hallucinations are real but emerge from physical processes in the brain rather than existing separately from matter.

• Some argue that mental states are just brain states. If we fully understood the brain, we could describe every mental experience in terms of electrical and chemical activity.
• In this view, hallucinations are not separate from the physical—they are just complex patterns of neural activity

Conclusion​

People who say hallucinations are physical usually focus on their brain-based origins. However, those who call them non-physical emphasize that they are experiences rather than external, tangible things.

So, the debate comes down to how you define existence—whether something must be tangible and measurable to be "real" or whether subjective experiences have their own kind of reality.