Harmonic analysis brings nothing new to the table. What are the "simple" terms useful for? Why would criticality be the means through which psychedelics work rather than artifact of your analysis method applied to brain with increased inter functional unit connectivity?
Because it it's just "presence of psychedelics" or "seizure" we have tools for these already.
You cannot jump from being a descriptive measure to constructive without a proof. Most importantly, is the measure reversible, as in inducing same measurement (with different means) results in similar state? In which other states said correlations exist or not? How can we induce them?
In comparison, standard method is supported by evidence of "God helmet" inducing signals in specific place in the brain and results of direct electric stimulation. These do not induce any kind of oscillation behaviour nor inter unit crosstalk like psychedelics, yet they have many similar features.
This is not a correct argument. You have to show validity of your measure before posing it as a mechanism at least.
We do already suspect that psychedelics work by increasing connectivity (in some way) between units - people with PhDs as well. While this presupposes an even more basic albeit also complex "resonant" mechanism - with no evidence other than its own measurement - it is tautological.
Harmonic analysis will always show you resonances and frequencies, because that's what it is composed off. What if temporal relations matter? Magnitudes?
It's the same as with sound, look at frequency spectrum without time and conclude that's all that matters. We have already figured out much more about hearing and sound processing, which is complicated and adaptive since.
Likewise vision, including partial decodings. How does harmonic version help there?
Neurons are complex enough, spiking, chemical and structure driven that this approach is bound to be a dead end. It's simplistic, not simple.
It is akin to telling quantum physicists to just use old Born-Wiener process interpretation.
Yet, "trash" is a harsh word, especially given that your further comments are not always clear (or supported).