To claim that Proust was a neuroscientist is the same as claiming Descartes or Henry James was a neuroscientist. Yeah, they talked about the brain, but so did a lot of people. All that made them special is that they looked into psychology.

These authors developed their ideas on combining imagination with philosophical principles; they looked at the world around them and tried to piece together what they couldn't see. Honestly, Proust is as much a neuro scientist as Jules Verne was a rocket scientist.

Science has always been following philosophy. The scientist has limited himself only to what can be discovered by the technology at hand. However, he pursues what he thinks needs to be understood by his philosophical understanding. The artist, however, is not limited by his tools, and allows his imagination to take control. He can transcend the limitations of the material and look into worlds not known.

Its all philosophy, anyway. How can we begin to answer questions until we have developed the pattern and way to answer? The scientist have their tools, the writers their imagination, and that neuroscientist author obviously lacks common sense.

Its all philosophy, anyway.

Philosophy is bunk.

Now all you need to do is give a reason why philosophy is bunk and you would in fact be doing philosophy. Now you're in a pickle. Give a reason and you become a hypocrite, don't and you remain a philistine.

My my, aren't we the dour little fray-monkey. Shall I tell Socrates he's not needed at our next meeting?

I was going to title my next book Towards an Ontology of Bunkum but you stole the wind from my sails. Curses.

I had an English professor in college who was convinced Shakespeare had invented modern psychology with "Hamlet" -- Freud's Oedipal complex in particular gets emphasis there. That having been said, though, I think some artists DO tap into neurological realities without realizing it. Scientific truths can be felt, and anything that can be felt can be written about. Speaking, for example, of the George Eliot quote, I was recently reading this in Newsweek: <link> Brain Fitness is becoming a huge market now because it’s been discovered that the decline our brains undergo as we age is NOT irreversible. With some of these programs it really is possible to maintain cognitive abilities. It’s worth mentioning, though, that Posit Science is the only one in the article which bore successful results under a rigorous clinical study, called IMPACT, which is mentioned in the article. IMPACT, for example, showed that the program could improve memory by a difference of 10 years. Of course, these programs were not around during George Eliot's time, but with a mind like hers perhaps she felt her brain rejuvenating itself. The point being that perhaps artists do not study like neurologists, but they can certainly express neurological phenomena in their own terms, and produce the need for research. Indeed, this may be one of art's social duties.