I believe we have a fundamental difference of opinion.

In yours and Noë’s position, there is a sense that the limits of empirical neuroscience can already be known today. Therefore most work that has already been done and the future of the field gets cast in a general shroud of relative unimportance when it comes to these questions of consciousness, art and meaning. I can see how this position sounds good anyone who is vaguely skeptical about scientific materialism– but to me, by confidently assuming there are limits before we’ve even come close to a level of investigation capable of seeing the whole picture, it closes the door on a world rich with wonder and awe: the neuroscientific exploration of the brain, presently in its early stages.

It is true that, like a joke, a world of context allows the communication between art and observer to function with meaning– if you see above, I agreed with this section of Noë’s piece. But where you and I part ways is that you seem to see this insight as reason to believe that meaning in art resides in this “larger system,” which you denote with the capitalized Consciousness. That “patterns” of firing neurons inside the brain cannot account for the meaning of art. At this moment when you and Noë move out of our heads, I prefer to stay behind, because I believe everything you’re mentioning can be found right there, in the head. That world of references and context, language, learned culture, our perception of the environment and geography through our senses and internal orientation systems– if neuroscience has taught and continues to teach us anything, it’s that all these elements of our conscious and non-conscious lives are contained in the brain, suspended as it is within our heads. Using our present-day, fairly rudimentary understanding of the human brain to declare that the meaning of art can’t possibly be contained inside the brain is irresponsibly dismissive.

Two brains interacting to make art or perceive it is a social act of communication, yes. But let’s not mistake the act (communication, socialization) two or more things do together, by definition, for the things themselves (brains) behind the act.

We grow up together in an increasingly globalized culture. We learn this culture through the constant reorganization of our nervous system. And thus when art has meaning for us, we shouldn’t confuse the fact that others may find similar meaning in it as evidence for this extended “Consciousness” you speak of. Likewise, we need not be dissuaded that all the meaning there is for each of us is achieved by an as-of-yet poorly understood universe of electrochemical activity between our ears. This fact is awe-inspiring and opens the door to a wonderful universe of inquiry.

Lastly, you’re right, you could study the effect of perceiving a Matisse on the digestive system and generate data. Think of all the possibilities! But instead of sitting around thinking up worthless and absurd experiments, I’d rather listen to scientists who respect the vast unknown and generate intelligent hypotheses to begin to answer the unanswered. Maybe studying the basic dynamics of V1 and some speculative work into other regions is where neuroaesthetics operates for now, by necessity. But I prefer to cheer from the sidelines and supportively nudge rather than denigrate and confidently declare the permanent limits of our understanding.

No man is an Island – art is inherently social – this make sense to me.

neuroscience? stick with the physical, though even that will exceed the fundamental model, that the brain makes consciousness. crikey.