Dr. Grinberg

[terencimaquena]

Feeling inspired to post a lot these days, as I am currently writing a paper on Psychedelics and Consciousness. I hope it's not too many posts

So, Dr. Jacobo Grinberg:
Have you heard about this guy?

He developed this theory called "Syntergic Theory", which I am trying to find as much information as I can to link it to the idea of Fundamental Consciousness of David Chalmers.

It seems very promising, but I don't know if this Syntergic Theory has much validity, although it makes a lot of sense if you ask me. Practically says what we probably think here. Also, this theory is quite old now; that is quite discouraging.

Anyways, I'll leave a couple links below to Grinberg's and Chalmers' Wiki. Let's see what you people think about it.

Jacobo Grinberg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

David Chalmers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And extracted from Stanford Plato Philosophy Encyclopedia (Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)):

Fundamental property dualism regards conscious mental properties as basic constituents of reality on a par with fundamental physical properties such as electromagnetic charge. They may interact in causal and law-like ways with other fundamental properties such as those of physics, but ontologically their existence is not dependent upon nor derivative from any other properties (Chalmers 1996).

 

[[:]]

A paper on the topic of Syntergic Theory...

Incidentally I consider this material to be inaccurate and consider consciousness to be an aspect of cellular biology and that consciousnesses is present even in individual cells and that our function of cognition is an aggregation of cellular consciousness, so to speak. However that topic is extremely heavy and to discuss it requires a great deal of biological and chemical information, this is thus hardly the place to exposit upon it.

 

[terencimaquena]

A paper on the topic of Syntergic Theory...

Incidentally I consider this material to be inaccurate and consider consciousness to be an aspect of cellular biology and that consciousnesses is present even in individual cells and that our function of cognition is an aggregation of cellular consciousness, so to speak. However that topic is extremely heavy and to discuss it requires a great deal of biological and chemical information, this is thus hardly the place to exposit upon it.

Thanks for replying!
I've been reading more about it, specifically the original papers from Grinberg and his team after him and until 2009.

So, first of all, I think it would be fair to say my background is in philosophy, specifically consciousness studies, as well as metaphysics, epistemology, etc. Nonetheless, I have good knowledge of chemistry and physics, as well as philosophy of science. I cannot accept a reductionist view such as a biological reductionism, nor any kind of physicalism, as it is inconsistent in many proven ways (can cite if requested).

Secondly "to discuss it requires a great deal of biological and chemical information" suggests that we need detailed information about the biological processes, which we know eventually sums up to chemical interactions which we know eventually sums up to physics, and there we are, postulating the existence of "dark matter" in order to explain how some of our current theories hold up, and resorting to quantum theories as well. (Yes, I simplified that quite a bit, but it does the job and it is true enough in the context used)
Besides this: how much biological/chemical/physical data would we need to encapsulate consciousness? Doesn't seem feasible to think we will get to an exact number that gives us that information, specially because it never really happened in any application of maths to the physical world. We get approximations, which are good enough for us, and that's fine. This is a divisive way of knowledge that we as a society have formed over our history. Concept formation delimitates the way we experience reality (can provide links for this too if requested), and numbers fit that quite well.

Going back to the Syntergic Theory:
from what I've seen reading the original paper (attached), there's no doubt of a transferred potential between brains with no issue with the distance in between. If I fail to see something there, I'd very much like to be reminded of what it is.

Thanks again for taking your time to discuss this.

PD: Paper attached is in Spanish. It's easy to understand if you have a bit of knowledge of the language, but the graphics speak quite well for themselves anyways.