I think the problem with this theory is similar to evolutionary psychology.
Reading it, it makes perfect sense and explains current observations. But how do you methodically disprove the other competing theories? How do we winnow down to this as the actual truth?
You need empirical data that we don’t yet have a practical means of collecting. With a system like a neural link, with thousands of electrodes wired to the frontal cortex and data cross correlating it to dopamine levels, we could actually built a simulation from the data and then validate this theory against that simulation.
(evolutionary psychology has a worse problem I suppose—in that case it is making theories about a past that we cannot observe. with your theory we can hope to collect the data)
I think the problem with this theory is similar to evolutionary psychology.
Reading it, it makes perfect sense and explains current observations. But how do you methodically disprove the other competing theories? How do we winnow down to this as the actual truth?
You need empirical data that we don’t yet have a practical means of collecting. With a system like a neural link, with thousands of electrodes wired to the frontal cortex and data cross correlating it to dopamine levels, we could actually built a simulation from the data and then validate this theory against that simulation.
(evolutionary psychology has a worse problem I suppose—in that case it is making theories about a past that we cannot observe. with your theory we can hope to collect the data)