why do we enjoy poetry From the perspective of neuroscience?

[Alan V]

The essence of the issue, to me, is this: mind is about "What is it like to experience X?" Science might be able to guess, linguistically, what a person is experiencing. It might be able to report, "bennyboy exhibits brain patterns associated with X" But I cannot conceive of any way in which subjective and objective perspectives can truly be brought into a single framework. That's because they are diametrically opposed, by definition.

I already answered this. See below.

If science is about making objective observations, I say you cannot do a science of mind, because mind cannot be observed at all.

Of course we can observe our own minds directly.  First person accounts form a useful part of scientific studies, especially when scientists have large samplings which are compared to measurements of brain activity.

All sorts of things can't be observed directly by science, yet scientists can assemble excellent guesses by means of their careful detective work on available evidence, including proxies.  That's how scientists reconstructed ancient climates for instance.

Scientists are studying the mind, and the objections of philosophers are not standing in their way.

---

Philosophy and science have always worked dialectically. Or, depending on where you want to draw the boundary lines, we can agree with bennyboy that science is a subset of philosophy. It's the part of philosophy which demands, a priori, methodological naturalism, and accepts only empirical repeatable inter-subjective quantifiable evidence. Questions about reality which can't be answered within those limits aren't science, but may interest philosophers.

I find it surprising that philosophers still think "science is a subset of philosophy" instead of a spinoff.