why do we enjoy poetry From the perspective of neuroscience?

[bennyboy]

It's because I'm very aware of the relationship between context and truths which I think must ALWAYS either explicitly or implicitly be held in relation to some context.

Psychology and psychogony are conflated in science, since science cannot (by definition I think) say much about brute facts.  But when conflation is treated as equation ("We know a lot about how the brain affects experience" --> "We understand what mind is and why it exists. . . the brain!"), then this is in my opinion an overly impoverished philosophical position.

I prefer to think of science as conservative, in that it doesn't wander far from what is warranted from observations.  So I guess we will remain at odds on certain issues.

Here's the essence of the issue, then.  If science is about making objective observations, I say you cannot do a science of mind, because mind cannot be observed at all.  A neural psychologist will say that neural function is a direct correlate of mind, so much so that one is not separable from the other, and will look at reports of experience ("I smell toast for some reason."), performance on tests (Like a computer being able to know what choice you'll make in a test before you are consciously aware of it), and the relationship between drugs on parts of the brain and subsequent changes in reported experience or in behaviors.

In a pragmatic sense, I'll go with science because it achieves results that are useful and interest.  But I will never stand by for declarations of fiat: "Well, it's the processing that is mind, so a computer can have a mind. . . so we need to make laws to protect cyborgs!" The possible consequences of doing bad philosophy are real, IMO, with the advent of AI that might consistently pass the Turing test.