Would you get upset if someone told you to go looking for something only to say afterwards “lol jk there was never anything to find!” People generally have the

Would you get upset if someone told you to go looking for something only to say afterwards “lol jk there was never anything to find!” People generally have the expectation that there is a human to be understood (even if imprecisely or incorrectly) on the other side of a piece of art. Expectation violation (especially after some effort has been spent) is just about the most basic source of disappointment there is. Can you say specifically what you think is “pseudoscientific” about the claim that there’s a chain of causality from artist’s mental state to viewer’s? How exactly does a piece of art come into your awareness if not by some chain of causality preceding it? You think there was just artist and viewer and no chain of physical events in which the former is affecting the latter’s consciousness? Talk about pseudoscientific mumbojumbo!