why do we enjoy poetry From the perspective of neuroscience?

[Angrboda]

But I think we could express the question in different ways. "Is it possible to study non-scientific fields with scientific means?" "Does brain science tell us anything useful about aesthetic questions?" Things like that. 

I'd answer that yes, it definitely does tell us useful things.  I'm of the camp that thinks quick scanners will eventually be able to track ideas in real-time.  With large enough statistical samples and clever enough algorithms, we might have a better understanding of how people respond to poetry than individuals can express, precisely because feelings can't be expressed well with words.

That being said-- I cannot fathom how the mind/matter bridge will ever be bridged.  I suppose cybernetics might be the key-- brain implants that augment experience could give us the ability to subjectively experience information in new ways, for example.

How do you attribute causality with non-brain events? For example, Hume postulated that all we see is conjunction, not cause and effect. Say a billiard ball strikes another billiard ball, stopping itself, and resulting in the other billiard ball being put into motion. It would seem that you have a problem similar to associating qualia with brain states in that all you have is a correlation between one ball coming into contact with the other ball and the other ball moving. If all you have is correlation, and your argument against identifying correlation with causation is that it is an insurmountable barrier, then it would seem necessary for you to deny all causation. If you can't attribute causation to anything, then how would you explain anything? So, how do you overcome the philosophical hurdle of attributing causation to correlation in physical events?