>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.

> "hey, it's the feeling that they feel that's making them better"

That’s called “the placebo effect” and it’s one of the most studied & controlled for factors in ANY medical testing.

The way I would rephrase OP is "what is the most useful abstraction for the mechanism of action of these drugs". It might be that limiting yourself to neurological phenomena gives you a much longer, more unwieldy model of what's happening here than an equally predictive model that centers on subjective experience.

Nit: my feelings are closer to "we are ignoring one of possibly many useful abstractions", but otherwise yes.

If I'm being pedantic here, it's that I really don't want to downplay the importance of the pharmacological level of analysis. It's a very useful analysis. It's just not a complete theory of life well-lived.

We’re not ignoring them. We’re patiently waiting for them to be proven to exist & have a demonstrable mechanism of action.

Believe me, I’d be the first to suggest they be considered if we had that. We don’t. It would be great if we did.

Until then it’s not medicine, it’s shamanism.

> limiting yourself to neurological phenomena

I’m fine with including other phenomena. As I said in my original comment though: those phenomena need to be demonstrated to exist, first.

Until then it’s absolutely unscientific, and medically unsound, to assume they exist & then hope that they magically work. Because that is not science: that’s quackery.

Congratulations, you’ve discovered a very very old thought experiment & demonstrated that proponents of qualia are no further on than they were decades ago in providing anything even approaching proof of their conjecture.

The “substantial revisions” after 17 years to that paper are—rather weak—responses to objections raised in the 90s and should have been in their 2002 paper. Worse, they’re responses that have their own major objections by 2002 anyhow.

Not sure what your aim was but I guess thank you for underscoring my point rather perfectly?