[OgsyedIE]

I think there is a mixture of useful insights and novice errors here. If you're interested, I can recommend Steven Byrnes' series on valence and self-models as some of the most compelling introductory blog essays about seriously approaching contemporary neuroscience through the lens of physics.

[quantadev]

What I wrote in that post was just the simplest chain of thoughts to point people in the right direction, sort of as an exercise to see how terse I can make it and still cover the main points. That's not the full theory. Writing down everything I know would fill about 100 pages.

[cyrillite]

I would love to read this and other material. Got links?

[bookofjoe]

https://www.lesswrong.com/s/6uDBPacS6zDipqbZ9

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/As7bjEAbNpidKx6LR/valence-se...

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/73xBjgoHuiKvJ5WRk/intuitive-...

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JLZnSnJptzmPtSRTc/intuitive-...

https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/73xBjgoHuiKvJ5WRk/intuiti...

Full disclosure: the links above were provided by Perplexity Pro.

Caveat lector

[quantadev]

Another concept in this sort of realm is "Assembly Theory" by Lee Cronin. He's onto the right track with his "Causality Chain" concept, but it blows my mind he hasn't bought into the idea that with entanglement the entire chain might be a "signal carrier". He's 90% onto the right track. He just needs to realize the causality chain is "alive" at least in terms or probability waves, but as a chemist and not a Physicist he's probably afraid to delve too deeply into the realms of anything that smacks of retro-causation, even if it ever entered his mind.