[LatencyKills]

> scientific studies grasping for explanations to spiritual things always give me a smile.

There are no "spiritual" things. Everything we experience is based upon biology and chemistry. Where do you think the "chills" come from if not synaptic firing?

[elemesmedve]

There are only "spiritual" "things". Where do you think "biology", "chemistry" and "synapses" come from?

[LatencyKills]

They are the result of an infinite and ever expanding cosmos; absolutely no magic thinking or beliefs are required. I don't need to pretend that magic exists just because processes are complex.

[elemesmedve]

What I'm getting at is the difference between subjective experience ("chills") and any theory describing it. ("Qualia", "no amount of simulating water will make anything wet", etc.)

Although personally I prefer scientific theories to describe reality (they are still the best/most useful), our experience is never "based" on theories.

[LatencyKills]

Well then we agree. I'm just not a fan of using the term "spiritual" for a physical event. No need to ascribe "chills" in a hand-wavy manner.

[tummler]

Why does the term “spiritual” bother you so much? Perhaps interrogate that.

[LatencyKills]

I don't really have to interrogate why the term "spiritual" has absolutely no meaning wrt the genetic underpinnings of the effects discussed in the study. The study was scientific. It isn't complicated.

[krzat]

IMO, if we had enough brain scans paired with descriptions of subjective experience, we could create a decent bridge between objective and subjective.

[fragmede]

They were created by magic Gaia energy spirit beings, obviously. Or God, if that is your desired flavor. Or the beings in control of the simulation we're living in.