Introduction:
Kanga, the writer, felt guilty when he spoke to the scientist due to several reasons. These reasons can be analyzed in detail to understand the depth of his guilt.

Feeling of Betrayal:
One of the main reasons for Kanga's guilt was the feeling of betrayal. As a writer, Kanga had always been an advocate for creativity and imagination. However, when he spoke to the scientist, he realized that he had been unknowingly supporting the suppression of imagination through his writing. The scientist's perspective on imagination being a mere byproduct of the human brain made Kanga question his own beliefs and his role as a writer.

Realization of Impact:
During the conversation, Kanga realized the impact of his writing on society. He had been promoting the idea that imagination was a powerful tool for human development and creativity. However, the scientist's arguments challenged this notion by suggesting that imagination was nothing more than a biochemical process in the brain. This realization made Kanga question the validity of his work and the potential harm it may have caused to individuals who believed in the power of imagination.

Conflict of Values:
Kanga's guilt also stemmed from a conflict of values. As a writer, he had always believed in the importance of fostering imagination and creativity in individuals. However, the scientist's perspective contradicted this belief, presenting imagination as a meaningless construct. This clash of values left Kanga feeling torn between his own convictions and the scientific reasoning presented to him.

Responsibility as a Writer:
As a writer, Kanga felt a sense of responsibility towards his readers. He had always aimed to inspire and uplift his audience through his work. However, the scientist's arguments had the potential to undermine the positive impact Kanga had intended to make. This realization made Kanga feel guilty for potentially misleading his readers and not thoroughly considering the consequences of his writing.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, Kanga felt guilty when he spoke to the scientist due to the feeling of betrayal, realization of impact, conflict of values, and a sense of responsibility as a writer. These factors combined to make him question his own beliefs and the potential harm his writing may have caused. The conversation with the scientist served as a catalyst for self-reflection and a reevaluation of his role as a writer.