>If qualia are not different that our “neurological machinery” (and all available evidence shows this so far, not least the incoherence of definitions of qualia

>If qualia are not different that our “neurological machinery” (and all available evidence shows this so far, not least the incoherence of definitions of qualia that try to exclude such) then medicine is already considering such as a major parameter. No, they are definitely not. I don't see anything in these studies to the effect of "hey, it's the feeling that they feel that's making them better". They're looking for some mysterious mechanism, usually on the cellular or molecular level, whereas "numen" and "transcendence" are not even on the biological level of analysis.