Neuroaesthetics

I recently read an op ed article on The New York Times website called "Art and the Limits of Neuroscience." It discusses the new field of neuroaesthetics, which studies art using neuroscience. The author, a professor of philosophy, is skeptical of the new field.


I agree with him insofar as neuroaesthetics has definitely come too soon. There is a fundamental lack of understanding about how the brain works, what thoughts are, how memories are stored, even the specifics of the biochemistry of it all. As the author points out "neuroscience has yet to frame anything like an adequate biological or “naturalistic” account of human experience — of thought, perception, or consciousness." I agree with him in that there is simply no way to tackle a problem as complex as our interpretation and experience of art without being able to understand the basics of thought and perception. So certainly the field is pretty much going to be a "fad science" kind of thing, with most books being published for the average reader and mostly just interesting anecdotes, not research that advances scientific knowledge all that much.

I disagree with him in claiming, as support for his skepticism of neuroaesthetics, that "there can be no all-purpose account of what happens when people communicate or when they laugh together." I, for one, see no justification anywhere in his article for this claim, and would say that these are probably some of the most attainable goals of neuroscience. Outside stimuli are much easier to explore and understand than the more introspective aspects of our consciousness. I think that it is quite possible for us to get an "all-purpose account" of communication. Great leaps have been made in understanding language and such, why on earth would this be impossible?

What do you think? Is an "all-purpose account" of human communication and laughter within the reaches of neuroscience?