why do we enjoy poetry From the perspective of neuroscience?

[The Grand Nudger]

It helps more than it may seem at first glance.  This is due to our being able to observe both that and how other physical systems present and handle abstractions.  Systems that we have the convenience of being able to take apart piece by piece and study at a level of intensity unavailable to us with regards to the brain for practical and ethical reasons, lol.  Our cameras, for example, create bitmaps.  This is how they wield abstraction to record their field of view.  This record is translatable, and conferrable..to us, even.  We can see what the camera saw..even if we can't see what the camera could on our own.  So, we look for something like a bitmap analog - and finding that would help us to understand the experience of seeing the world.  Why and how it presents itself to us in the manner that it does (there's no gaurantee that understanding this will answer any question -you- may have, ofc).

The "jump" from electrochemical events to felt experience is not completely unexplained.  This is pointless sensationalism (and dated as all hell, on top of that).  Above, I was discussing visual field processing, which isn't a black box.  There are multiple explanations, each of which can be shown to be workable in principle and theory, and the trick now is to establish which (if any) apply to human visual field processing..or are more accurate themselves or in conjunction with others or portions of others.

Digital cameras don't have selves, and don't experience qualia. So the analogy isn't helpful here.

That you fail to see why something is helpful does not make it less so.  Visual field processing has been instrumental to contemporary hypothesis of mind.  

It's possible that the comparison to computer bit mapping will help to clarify something. We should remember, though, that in the history of science brains and bodies have always been explained analogously according to whatever technology is new and cool at the time. Yet these comparisons are very limited and sometimes misleading. Brains don't work the way our computers do, for example.

The computer analogy is a way of explaining something by reference to another similar known thing.  Not the notion that they are the same thing. A ford is alot like a chevy, but a ford is not a chevy. Understaning some things about fords will help you understand some things about chevys, even though understanding -everything- about a ford may still leave you unable to comprehend some things about a chevy. Some ford things may even mislead you when it comes to chevy things...but you'll learn -something- from all of that no matter how it pans out.

We now understand, for example..that whatever processing is done is distributed, unlike our pc's, which have central units. We learned that while checking to see if there were a central unit.
(and it would have been far more philosophically convenient if there were, lol.. )

This is basic shit, Bel. Perhaps it would be more productive if you laid out what problems you have with any of the current theories of mind, or current hypotheses of the same...rather than make blanket claims about black boxes, mysteries..and what is or isn't helpful to researchers?