the mysteries of matter

En: Assuming, of course, that the universe, itself, is not a consciousness observing itself.

You are the conscious portion of the universe and it is without a doubt that there was a long stretch where consciousness was not possible, starting with the big bang and lasting until the first stars collesed out of debris from super novas and then developed conscious life.

So perhaps 5 billion years minimum to get consciousness anywhere, though I could be overly enthusiastic about how fast the process could get spun up to a degree that consciousness is even possible.

Assuming, of course, that the universe, itself, is not a consciousness observing itself.
----------
exactly.
The universe is in fact a cosmic hologram, and just as consciousness arises from chemistry on the scale we live in, consciousness arises from other forms of chaos and order at other scales.

The first incidence of this was in the hyperquantum froth. the big bang happened precisely because of the polarization created by gods first self observation.

">> "Actually according to the physical record left by the emergence of life and the development of observation.
Existence preceeds observation by a significant margin so observation cannot be a requirement for existence."

I'd really like to know the source of all this transtemporal and omniscient perception you got goin' on. "

there are fossils and molecular evidence. we try to infer what has gone on from geological, paleontological, and molecular evidence, among other things. we just don't have any evidence right now of life on the planet as old as the planet, or any nearly as old as the universe. if the evidence changes, then the statement changes. but it appears that life originated in extremely simple form a little less than 4 billion years ago, and that the earth itself is 4.5 billion years old. current estimates of the universe's age are around 20 billion years.

""Physical records" seem a mighty poor source of information about consciousness."

every consciousness we know of seems to follow around a brain. are you proposing some are nonphysical completely? how do they exist in this world, interact with it? do they exist without loki thinking about them? i doubt it.

>>"what seems to be YOUR preconception of me"<<

It... seems.... as if you tack a lot of nonexistent verbiage on to my posts, and call it "defensive".

I defend nothing. I need no defense, here. When not neutrally communicating - I attack, only. I leave it to you to decide whether or not it's worthwhile to defend anything. I'm defensive in certain situations - this ain't it. Why not just imagine, for the sake of comprehensibility, that I type out true-ish attempts at describing my own thought processes accurately? Why invent a need for justification? Is it really believable that I somehow don't feel justified? That I'm at all confused? That I operate from illusion? If so I'd really like some analysis. I enjoy that sort of thing.

I don't necessarily cotton, though, to reading the same increasingly weak psychological profile. Charges of defensiveness start to get pale when I admit so openly to the indefensibility of *any* assertion. If we climb down the ladder and discuss public policy, popular trends, ethics, or similarly temporal stuff, I'll have an actual opportunity to become defensive. Check me out in the gossip tribes, or "What's Hot and What's Not", or a meme-tribe. There, I get defensive. With enthusiasm! "Waah waah - harry potter sucks! it's a rip-off of the Books of Magic! Waaaah! I *hated* the Waking Life~!" These positions *require* a defense.

Here, unless we're talking politics (which happens a *lot* on CoR - *far* more often than we discuss religion), I'm neither defending my assertions nor pretending to positive certainty about things I can't know about. I'm engaging in reportage, and then discussing my conclusions. I'm aware it gets pompous - that's why I often call myself "pompous" so that we can dispense with the perceived need to point it out for me. Yes: I am pompous. The truly great sometimes are.

It's tiresome to have typed all this shit out only to suspect you're not reading it... If I say "here's what I saw" and you say "you're being defensive" enough times, I'll start to toy with you. Just being honest, J: I'm a capricious guy in some ways. I won't deny that I do, in fact, toy with people; I'd like to think I do it, though, only *after* they render themselves deliberately irrelevant.

I know it all sounds all pompous, but imagine me, just kind of sitting here and trying to find the words to express it clearly.... maybe an anecdote:

I cruelly toy with Swarm, for instance, at the risk of other respondents losing patience, because his mind stops dead at a certain point, and he puts on blinders to hide from himself that he's full of shit about things *he really believes he thinks* are important. He likes to horn in and try to invalidate other peoples' expressions - either before they've made themselves clear, or after he's already picked that particular bone clean ages ago. He's *mean* to people that were not being mean to him. because I'm egotistical and self-satisfied, I take that as a mandate to fuck with him.

Once his mind stopped being dynamic with me, personally, I began to toy with him. It's not nice - I'm not nice. I'm heavy. I'm intolerant, judgmental, ruthless. But -

I *am friendly* and earnestly compassionate, and I think it's not too much to ask that you at least pretend that I'm not lying to you, if only to advance the discussion past pointless and empty character attributions and toward the part where you get to say "see? I was right and you were wrong." Wouldn't that be cool? Some folks could tell you that when I'm wrong or at fault - I cop to it immediately and behave contritely for a few microseconds - that's more than you should expect from most trolls. I'm the good kind of troll - the pretty kind, the worthy kind.

Let's pull this thing out of the place religionists live - let's not pretend that either of us has any special knowledge, OK? Let's assume each is speaking from a spirit of at least mechanical honesty, from which both of us are seeking to discover something, and test something. Is that not so?

Am I thinking inaccurate thoughts? Show me how and where.

I request that you treat the discussion as something other than only a chance to show how people who reject materialism are somehow emotionally flawed (not that that's what I necessarily think you're doing - but I suspect that motive is in there somewhere). It's old, played out; it was never very successful, for the same reason evangelicals are so full of shit when they spew about "sin". They're sinners, with by-now-ought-to-be-obvious gusto.

I am, interpersonally and emotionally, the wisest and most broadly educated motherfucker there is in my world, so it's pretty hard for me to entertain a "defensive" charge - especially when I'm usually pretty forthcoming and unrepentant with "character flaws".

I want to look at your charge reasonably, but it's very difficult because I feel it's a dodge, it's impertinent, it is, in fact, itself, defensive.

I'd defend myself if I had something to lose - ey? ey? c-wamsain? I stand to lose nothing, here. I've made a point of making myself hard to respect on some of these forums *specifically* so I wouldn't get caught up in trying to earn respect. What I want is education and experiment. I'm not very interested in too many peoples' opinion of me, personally - especially if that opinion interferes with their intellectual abilities.

So I'll make this offer: I will ignore it any time I think I see you being merely "defensive" and pretend (if I have to) that you're actually being honest, in return for the same consideration. I won't de-friend you if you say something I disagree with, even if it makes me angry. If we could give recs on this server, I'd give you a rec every time you pissed me off. I *love* being angry over ontology / theology / anthropology / epistemology! There's no better stuff to get pissed over!

>>"can't mommy spiritualism and daddy materialism get along? ; )"<<

Fuck em. They do, though, get along, in the sense that they work together, as godlike and tragically complex but at least partially vampiric entities, in their shared implicit goal of pulling the wool over humanity's eyes in order to keep us all stupidly fightin' and fuckin' without significant pause.

Q: how do I get Lokifreign to find inherent damning flaws in any given premise?

A: Tout it.

Q: But why does he do that?

A: Go away! The Wizard sees no one!

>>"okay loki, what are immaterial things made of?"<<

As far as I am able, so far, aside a bunch of mundane things you're versed on (like "concepts" and their relatives), I can say that things that are "made of" something are artificial, and that composition is a characteristic I, personally, associate with material for all but the most poetic or metaphorical purposes. Such attributions haven't yet seemed possible or poignant to make, in my experience. It seems more like a barb, a pitfall you're putting to me in an attempt to undermine something, perhaps a belief you still may think I'm possessed by.

>>" where do they originate?"<<

Same deal. I can't quite bring myself to believe that you want an answer to this question, or would really think there is one that jibes with anything i've said so far. You just want acknowledgment that material is limited to material. It is, I guess; so it seems. Material is materialistic. Is this a real question or is it, as I suggest, an attempt at debate, still? It's totally fine if (that) it is, but I just sort of assholishly want you to say so, if so, so we can understand one another better.

It would be cooler - for me, anyway - if you asked questions based at least politely in the assumption that I'm not a liar or incoherent. Don't I seem coherent? Do I strike you as a liar? Many have indeed made that assumption, based on their (mis)understanding of the character "Loki". I don't lie, though (too coarse - too low-level a form of mind-control for me to bother much with, in most situations; I'm perverse and have to feel challenged).

There's a wide range of questions you could ask that I'd be qualified to comment on. The two above are very generic, and assume that I have some kind of rote, mythological sort of answer, a catechism of some kind, which I don't really have to give you (sorry). A scientologist, or one of those christian-arcanists, or an Asatru-heathen would have much more colorful and detailed things to say in response to them. I don't have the comfort of their convictions, in fact, I have the discomforting feeling of biting my tongue in order to avoid saying "b-b-BULLshit" at certain functions.

I could answer those *kinds* of questions, were they narrowed to far more specific subjects. "Everything" is a big topic to be commenting on with descriptions and origins and such, ey.

There are many people to consult for imaginary logic. I won't pretend to have it to offer; that's not my game.