Any point of view about my book is welcomed, but, as long as you don't use the MDT terminology or at least the MDT frame, I am not convinced that you read/understand MDT.
The application section contains the MDT interpretation of some facts from the external reality and also many predictions. It is recommended to read this section after you read/understand the main theory. In this section I used a mixture of common language terminology and MDT terminology. For instance, in the common language terminology, the elephant has a huge memory, but in MDT the elephant is able to build and operate long_range_pure_image_models. What about your statement that the data/facts do not depend on the terminology?
If I would had written a book about Quantum Mechanics, to comment it, you should have been a specialist in Quantum Mechanics. That is, you should have used Quantum Mechanics terminology. On the other hand, you comment my book without using MDT terminology. Moreover, you use terms which are not defined in MDT, such as "memory" or "neuron". I will reply to you at the moment when your comments will be based on MDT terminology. What I saw is that your terminology is based on undefined terms and that you don't see the importance of the precise definitions of MDT terms and also the precision of the relations between them.