You're demanding that the new point of view instantly explain everything.

I'm demanding that it explain exactly what you claimed it could explain: behavior!

FWIW, when you seek a mate, the reference is, of course, having a mate. You perceive that you do not have one, and take such steps as you think appropriate to find one. If you want a detailed acount right down to the level of nerve impulses of how that all happens -- well, anyone who could do that would know how to build a strong AI. Nobody knows that, yet.

Yep, that confirms exactly what I was expecting: you've just relabeled the problem; you haven't simplified it. Your model tells me nothing except "this is what you could do, once you did all the real work in understanding this phenomenon, which you got some other way".

A theory isn't a machine that will give you answers for free. ETA: Newtonian mechanics won't hand you the answer to the N-body problem on a plate.

Poor comparison. Newtonian mechanics doesn't give me a an answer to the general n-body problem, but it gives me more than enough to generate a numerical solution to any specific n-body problem.

Your model isn't even in the same league. It just says the equivalent of, "Um, the bodies move in a, you know, gravitational-like manner, they figure out where gravity wants them to go, and they bring that all, into effect."

It feels like an explanation, but it isn't. The scientific answer would look more like, "The net acceleration any body experiences is equal to the vector sum of the forces on the body obtained from the law of gravitation, divided by its mass. To plot the paths, start with the initial positions and velocities, find the accelerations, and then up date the positions and start over."