Are you referring to the diction, or stating there is no description of how associations are created?

The latter. You are using physical language to describe mental phenomena, but the physical language is not earning its keep. Using "brain" instead of "mind" does not make this neuroscience.

I created a footnote to address the latter.

It answers the question "Where are associations created & what do they look like?" with:

We haven't really found the answer to that yet, to be honest.

You continue (I summarise, emphasis added): Hippocampal damage results in disturbance to memory function, leading to a "general theory that perhaps" ... "recent findings...may indicate glia also have some role to play in cortical functioning" ... "There have been some attempts to identify" ... "fraught with controversy" ... "no consensus" ... "The more one indulges a behaviour or association, the theory then goes, the broader the pathway or the stronger the association becomes."

It all looks terribly vague, and the last sentence describes runaway positive feedback. You can't make a functioning machine on that basis, except by introducing hacks (e.g. "satiation") to prevent it behaving the way the theory says.