Recognizing the importance of 5-HT2A is fine, but the overclaims here are painful to read - this is obviously more marketing than science.
In neuro, we don't know how NTs integrate across systems. We don't have subcellular receptor resolution, can't track real-time expression or modulation. We can't even do this reliably in animal models. And you're claiming programmable mental states from the molecular level?
Your ML approach sounds like aggregating BrainMaps, Allen Brain Atlas, NeuroSynth, and other open datasets with trip reports. The field has been doing this for years, and the results aren't that strong because we lack the deeper understanding - the actual neurobiological mechanisms needed as prerequisites. You'd need to integrate receptor distributions at the subcellular level, their intracellular cascades, their effects on brain activity both locally and globally, plus the connectome, structural heterogeneities, glial contributions, and validated computational frameworks like neural field models. We're nowhere close to that level of integration.
The comparisons to mRNA vaccines and CRISPR are baseless. Those technologies worked because we understood the underlying biology. With consciousness and mental states, we don't even have agreed-upon measurement frameworks.
Yes, different psychedelics produce distinct phenomenology - DMT entities, ibogaine memory replays, etc. But that diversity doesn't mean you've found a programmable substrate. You're correlating receptor binding with subjective reports and calling it revolutionary.
The hypothesis is indeed a holy grail: predict mental states from receptor distributions at subcellular resolution, their signaling cascades, local and global network effects, drug manipulation, brain connectome, structural heterogeneities, glial dynamics, computational models, etc. That's the aspiration the field has had for decades. Presenting it as achieved is premature and undermines legitimate neuroscience research and neurotechnology as a field.