I've used the term brain state as both static and dynamic. Physical brains will always be in a dynamic state and information linked with brains will always be in a dynamic state. I agree, any theory of information that uses a static state is suspect. — Mark Nyquist

I really think that "dynamic state" is oxymoronic. So any type of theory which talks about a state as anything other than static would seem incoherent to me. I'll see if I can explain this to you. Suppose something like a brain is dynamic, actively changing. You might describe its condition at one time as state #1 and its condition at a following time as state #2, and we could conclude that there was active change between #1 and #2. But we cannot combine state #1 with state #2 to say that these are actually one "dynamic state" because we've already made the premise of two distinct states. And we cannot describe the activity between #1 and #2 as a state because we've already designated it as the change between state #1and #2, therefore not definable as a "state".

A dynamic brain holding mental content is physically equal to a dynamic brain state, as a definition. — Mark Nyquist

So this definition is clearly unacceptable, as incoherent.