Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Comments
You can learn a lot from a Sonoran Desert Toad….
I did some toads back in the days
Me too, but I regretted it once I had sobered up…
Thanks for these links. What a great channel!
I understand.
Do you have dreams while you sleep?
Have you ever experienced a premonition?
Hey Mike, I have dreams for sure! And if by premonition you mean 'had a feeling that something was going to happen and then it happened'... Sure I have. But so have people of all religions and no religion. And plenty of times I've had a feeling that something was going to happen but it didn't. Either way, I don't see either of these things as being any kind of proof in any kind of supernatural plane of existence, nor do they prove a god, and nor do they prove that any particular religious teaching is true. That's my view anyway, cheers!
Sabine is great. He is also well known accepted scientist, not just some random youtuber :-), she is primary oriented to quantum gravity research.
I am followimg her channel almost from beginning, she went log way in terms of presenration skills and technical quality of videos.
Doesn’t directly relate to this but it relates to religion topic in general… I saw interesting interview, dude did wast research of “NDE” experiences across many cultures, not just western culture, and also combined it with historical records of NDEs from different cultures.
What is very interesting, classic tunnel vision, followed by meeting with god-like presence, life retrospection and other aspects are specific just for western culture - especially indigenous tribes NDEs are absolutely different.. in general, he discovered that NDE experiences are strongly correlated with cultural and religious environment where somebody live (but often not with what he believe/disbelieve)
Iťs very interesting and it leads to major implications in relations to religions and faith frameworks developed by people during centuries and millienia. I am neutral to NDEs, many of them are obviously fake - people just telling stories they heard before, but some are really weird and hard to explain.
Regardless of that, i found fascinating that it looks like any of religions humans developed shows “real truth”, and people who die and then go back see things adjusted to their cultural/religious environment.
here it is interview with that researcher
I haven't watched the video but might later l, thanks Dendy, that's super interesting. And it's not surprising either. 'Spiritual experiences' are clearly often conditioned by religious and cultural background. If you take mushrooms or other paychedelics it is also clear that the brain can be made to perceive the most out-of this-world experiences, none of it any indicator of reality.
In Brazil I saw a canromble ceremony where people went into trances just from a combination of dance, music, and maybe openness to falling into trance. Based on the way they are dancing, some priests decide which god is currently possessing their body and they are taken into a room and given the costume of that God to wear, before continuing the trance dancing. Eventually they start falling out of trance and back to normality. Fascinating. The gods they believe in are basically a kind of amalagm of African gods / spirits and Christian Saints. I mean, it's so clearly a culturally conditioned religion when you look at the history of Brazil. All religion is culturally conditioned, in my view, and this is the view of most credible researchers who actually study these things from a historical, anthropological, sociological viewpoint. The average religious person is appallingly ignorant, to be honest, of the historical development of their own traditions, viewed from the perspective of research conducted today which is based on historical records etc (or the lack of them) rather than canonical texts from the tradition themselves.
Well, it's not that simple than it looks. I personally think there is something more weird behind NDE experiences, I don't think they are generated entirely just by brain as result of some physiological process. A large part of them are, as I said, nonsense, just people made up they. But there are some, which really cannot be explained any physiological process which is happening in dying brain. But as discovered by guy above, they are also cultural-related. Which makes is all just lot more weird.
I am neutral to this topic, cause there are few things which really science cannot explain, but I am also refusing to accept traditional religious explanations, they are just bunch of fairytales and stories made by people.
There is definitely something going on, but i feel like we are missing some important detail. So, no strong opinion on my side, just collecting data
Regarding all kinds of religions - to me it looks like there probably is some some deeper underlying process which induces these feelings, but problem is people are always trying describe it by some mental framework which is build using their language, they are trying to describe something which most probably really can't be described by words. So all those religions and god descriptions are utterly wrong, yet still based on some real basis. But they are soo much twisted and misunderstood that they have basically nothing to do with reality
))
I kinda similar situation is in science. Things in quantum physics can be really precisely described just by math. All that metaphors and verbal descriptions of particle spin, or entanglement, or superposition - they all are pretty much extremely not-precise, they are trying to describe something which really cannot be described with words. People then think they understand what is electron spin, but what they understand is actually just that metaphor they been told, cause electron is really not spinning at all. Some things in physics can be properly described just by math.
So maybe it is similar with how/from where our consciousness emerges when we are born and where it comes after we die - we made big set of all kinds of religious frameworks, trying to describe it (cause this information still may be encoded inside our subconsciousness, we just aren't able to access it directly), but "reality" may be something which is far away from all those frameworks, something really not possible to be described by classic language.
Oh and psychedelics is entire topic on it's own. Very interesting thing is DMT, which is considered one of most powerfull psychedelics in existence, is in small amount produces by all living beings (event plants!). One study even discovered that in dying brain, larger amount of DMT is released - but again, this cannot be interpreted that this CAUSES NDE experiences (long story, will try found the study where it was explained and will paste link here) - so it may look more like DMT actually unlocks brain's possibility to perceive things which are normally not accessible.
I started out atheist. My mum is catholic but lapsed so badly it would more accurately be described as prolapsed. My dad is atheist. I had to go to church growing up as part of a deal he struck with my mum’s catholic family to marry her. But the other side of the deal was he would always tell me what he thought as I grew up.
I was atheist before my dad talked to me about those things though, if I think about it. Even as a 6 or 7 year old, going to church was something I just had to do so mum would bribe me with sweets from the corner shop after. It was, like most of childhood, something that grown ups did, one of their rituals, that you also took part in for no particular reason other than grown ups said so. Life happens to you. I just heard some songs, heard some people reading boring stuff from a book, and then some stories which were even to my young mind, fictional due to the fantastic content. I never once regarded any of it as meaningful beyond creating a kind of connection with that environment, whatever my beliefs, and without me realising, that I’ll always have. Atheist friends and gfs (it’s quite rare to be religious among my generation, or cultural groups in the uk) have always regarded Christian’s with a bit of a kind of freaked out feeling but I simply don’t have that. I also know the nice feeling that can exist, much like in a Jewish community with a rabbi tending to people in the community. I remember my nana speaking to the canon. I remember the warmth that is absent in much of modern life.
As I got older, my feelings changed. I was an atheist not as a thing but as an absence of thing. God is a superimposition. On the immediacy of teh senses. I’m a very aesthetic person, and was so especially as a kid. If I sit in a garden, the tactility and quality of things is what is speaking to me. God would be something I’d have to append to that. I know I am seeing, and what I am seeing whether or not it’s real, my experience of it is. But god? I mean we have telescopes to see things that we can’t with the naked eye, that are extending our experience. But I couldn’t find a telescope to find god.
But this same reason for my lack of religiosity, in time, made me begin to lose respect for atheism and atheists as a community. I started to sense the same need, that others have spoken about here in atheists, as they sensed in religious people. Oh, I respect your belief but I think you believe in this or that because it helps you, not because it’s true. Well… the same applies. With atheists, that firm answer ‘there is no god’ whether or not it is truly believed , offers a huge amount of security and identity and self affirmation. They can’t define it, so they can’t disbelieve in it. What humans cannot bear is mystery. Not knowing. Because our sense fo self is leant up against ‘knowings’ whether those knowings are ontological, or simply what we see before us.
I don’t know is a much more challenging answer than god, no god. And I’m interested in thsoe challenges and more so why I find them challenging. I’m suspicious of myself, and others motivations where there exists need. Atheism is irrational. And if that makes an person angry, they should think about why that is, as it underlines the point, and an angry face looks like an angry face, whether it’s a religious fundamentalist, or a devout atheist.
I’m sorry for dilating a bit. Here’s where I actually answer the thread title.
I’m not agnostic. Agnostic is means you don’t know if there’s a god or not. A: absence of, gnostic: pertaining to knowledge. Well, it goes further than that for me. To what knowledge is.
Not all religions have a god in the sense western minds understand that. The statement I don’t believe in religion is a strange one to me because there is almost no connection, to a mind of that predilection, between many eastern religions and the major world religions. Buddhism is atheist in a pretty literal sense. I mean, yiu couldn’t get a more central concept. It’s positive nihilism. But that’s just one of a great many thoughts on the cosmos that arose from human contemplation of the self.
This is what affects my music. And everything I enjoy creatively.
The god in which atheists so vehemently hold their disbelief bears almost no relation to the god in which a lot of, though probably not the majority, religious theists believe. It’s a conveniently and tellingly superficial definition of god that is more a product of the materialistic ideology born of science etc in the west.
God is a word. An unhelpful one now, perhaps, in some ways. Which is why, in the beginning, in that formative time when gnostic Christianity and other religions were not so different at all from the atheistic eastern religions, that word was not allowed to be uttered. Terms like the Tetragrammaton existed because there could be no word to describe this concept, that was undone in description. That thing which knowing, seeing, perception could only acquire in symbol. That would vanish in the dualism of experience. And which could only be attained at the limits of teh self.
I think picking the clumsy definition, and the easy disbelief in it, just for me, is an intellectual and existential cop out. Just for me, apologies to anyone else of any persuasion. I am suspicious of that comfortable satisfaction some part of me would feel in that, and the part of me that would be satisfied. I think it’s something that is not me, but which is like an existential addiction, invading and without me or others realising, keeping us from our selves rather than being our selves.
Anyway, I’m gonna play some ps5 now. 😂
Modified Newtonian Gravity if memory serves me.
I get that atheists want to see the evidence, but then most don’t attempt any serious mystical or magical work in order to gain some. Where’s the scientific rigour in that?
I’m presently really enjoying this new series on Paracelsus:
Quite a guy. Very rigorous.
This deserves a long answer that I don't have time to think about and write right now. I'll just say that I don't agree that atheists are necessarily retreating into an irrational need for security. I think that is definitely true of some, but not all.
Will hopefully have time to respond to this more fully down the line. About Buddhism being atheist, that's superficially true, btw, but if you look at how Buddhism has been practised in reality, by real Buddhists, both historically and today, it's often a lot more complex than that. Although there may not have been a belief in a creator God, for example, in reality Buddhism has often been infused with massive doses of animism and with all kinds of superstitious elements. The same could be said - about animism - for various strands of Christianity btw, for example Irish Catholicism, which seems likely to have been heavily influenced by druidic elements.
It's always important to talk about the reality of how religion manifests in society and in individual lives rather than just its professed dogmas etc. The same could be said for science btw. The culture of science is infused also with irrationality and various human foibles.
I totally understand the attraction of ritual and mysticism etc. My own journey to my current views has been shaped by lots of reading, practising, life and reflection. If we had talked about this 5 or 6 years ago I would have had quite different views to those I hold now, and it's likely that will be true 5 years from now too. Has my mind closed to a certain extent now though? Probably yes. Everybody has to decide what things to prioritise. I'm not really sure how much time I'd give to someone proselytizing, because I genuinely don't think that anyone could convert me back into a believer, like I was as a kid. Tbh I don't even know why any of us are bothering to try to convince each other of our views on religion because it's just not really one of those things you're likely to change someone's mind about using words on the internet 😝
Yeah, I’m not a big, organized religion guy myself. I’ve been a leader at my church for the last six years and have been personally disappointed in the attitude I’ve seen behind the scenes a number of times. I continue to lead because we do help a lot people and I do believe in God, so I’m here to serve for sure. For me, I feel there is definitely a sense/human ability that is not completely understood and to some degree, gives me a feeling that it is related to what some call, a higher power or God.
My faith has definitely elevated my attitude towards being a light for others, when it’s relevant. My church family has been a blessing to myself and the community many times over. Sometimes I forget, like others, that religions are human made and often are lead by human emotion, with scripture being used as a control mechanism or weapon. At the same the wisdom shared in texts like the Bible have definitely elevated human potential. I’m personally most bothered when we turn people away when they are not “perfect” from the beginning. The judgement stuff really eradicates all the potential good. Life, for me, is very much a transformative experience and “church” should be a safe place to transform.
I do feel there is a danger in knowing too much and being too sure, science and religion are both guilty of “knowing too much”. Wars, death and more has been the result of being “sure.”
We’ve been afforded life and all that comes with it, but no one is 100% sure of the origin of our existence nor our purpose, we speculate and it’s all just theories or stories passed down. I personally find comfort in not knowing everything, because life is full of surprises and being open to listen allows possibilities to make a difference and be helpful - which you @Gavinski so generously share your time and expertise to make us all better musicians/artists - thank you by the way ❤️, but that’s just my perspective 🤷🏽♂️
Oh I wasn’t trying to convince, sorry if it came across like that. Just expressing my thoughts. I’m typing too much, I’ll edit.
I don’t agree with Buddhism being superficially atheist, though I agree with the rest. It comes down to your idea of superficial, which for all of us stems from our focus i suppose. It’s two different discussions. You’re basing it there on what is or actually being practiced, what is happening in physical reality, in the medium of society or people. If most people are practicing their religion in a way that is counter to their religion, that’s a mark on them not the religion but I understand the blurring of definitions. You said it’s important we talk about what religion is doing in practice etc.
I don’t feel that way though because I’m not at all interested in society, politics for reasons definitely not worth going into here as well as just my interests. When talking about it’s cultural artifacts…I feel that’s the superficial aspect next to the religion. The philosophy itself. Yes, it’s vital we talk about and act on its effects in practical, real world terms, but it’s just not my interest. It’s vital we do the plumbing but I’m not a plumber.
Not to mention that the same people involved in movements who are so very motivated to address the evils or Christianity are often actively taking part on silencing any kind of discussion of and demonising any critics of Islam or religions culpable of the same evils to a far greater extent. So politics and society are very ugly, muddy territories to me.
I’m interested in truth/beauty. I won’t let ugly things ruin beautiful things - it’s a choice peopel take when they do that, not a reality.
I hold no great reverence for Buddhism btw.
I’ve been to enough places and around enough Buddhists to know that eastern Buddhism very often is no different in function from Christianity or Islam to their cultures. And western Buddhists are… not my cup of tea.
Yeah you’re right, I agree, anbsolutely about proselytising - and have to apply that to atheists as well, certainly today. I couldn’t be around religious proselytising types, I’ve had to cut some off because it’s exhausting and tedious. In all honesty atheism, coupled with scientific materialism as it’s now normally the same thing in effect, has really become quite overbearing to me though, and pays this lip service to respecting beliefs.
But the irony is it, science, doesn’t know what it’s talking about metaphysically. It just doesn’t exist on that vector. It’s like a religious person discussing the formation of the universe or solar system, it’s not designed for that. External truth is the god/belief of science really.
Again, not rejecting this stuff. I love lots of science. I own no dream catchers, homeopathy remedies, or joss sticks. No African masks adorn my walls. Hmm. Just feel there’s a principle of investugating truth. Of investigating who we are, what we are, what world is, the relationship between the two. And this has been undertaken by philosophy, mysticism, science, religion. And it has yielded such lovely insights as well as such awful results. It has like all things, been subject to the spectrum of human behaviour and inclination. It’s it’s like a tracing where you can see the relief of our flaws as a in its own.
Blah blah blah. I’m sorry going on
How do you equate engaging in magic and mysticism with scientific rigor? Can you give me an example of how scientific rigor is applicable here?
There is probably enough evidence for most people in the huge logical holes in most organized religious practices to make them unlikely to delve into supernatural beliefs that don’t have many adherents.
It’s not about religion per se and more about religiousness. Do some of the rituals that have apparently worked for others, with sincerity, and keep a diary of the results you get in your lab.
No, interesting! Would be a good conversation to have over a coffee or something, too deep to do justice to here. Western Buddhists, yeah…I feel you! Massive generalization yes, but I know where you’re coming from - again, only in general though and in my own experience. ‘I’m interested in truth/beauty’ - you definitely sound more like a Platonist than a Buddhist. Doesn’t there need to be a ‘if you see the Plato on the road, kill him’ attitude too? The whole ‘kill the Buddha on the road thing’ though is also one particular - historical - version of Buddhism. But Buddhism and Platonism are mostly incompatible philosophies. The main point of Buddhism is that everything is conditioned. But you are writing as though there is some pure version of Buddhism unsullied by any contact with the conditioned. I’m not sure where you think you will find it. Not in early Buddhist texts I think, which were cobbled together by one particular sect of Buddhism and were only written down centuries after the Buddha’s death (if he ever really existed) and were written down in a language the Buddha did not even speak. Probably not in meditation either, which has a tendency to reveal what one’s teachers have said one is likely to find. Meditation is not some kind of objective science of the mind, free of its own conditioning - this is a very naive view and one that study of different Buddhist traditions, their practices and beliefs can help to deconstruct. You write yourself that beliefs are self-affirming. Maybe I misinterpreted your meaning there though.
Maybe Buddhism and Platonism do have more in common than they should, because there is that cop-out - at least to me it’s a cop-out - where Buddhism somehow manages to fit in this idea of reaching the ‘unconditioned’. I think it would have been far superior had it just stopped at the ‘everything is conditioned bit’. Enlightenment seems to me as much of a fantasy as heaven or hell. Note that the Dalai Lama doesn’t even think he’s enlightened. I think some people might be a bit more free and less conditioned than others - though I’m not even sure about the possibility of free will at all - but complete freedom? Doubt it exists and don’t think it is even necessarily desirable. Believing that one is enlightened seems like a recipe for disaster, as the downfall of so many Buddhist masters’ reputations in recent times, mostly due to allegations of sexual or other forms of abuse attest. I remember Jason Siff - I think he has an interesting approach to meditation by the way! - said something like, I pray no-one ever tells you you have reached a formal Buddhist attainment (stream entry etc).
The alignment of the true, the good and the beautiful - I don’t know, sounds nice, but I don’t see any reason to believe that they go together, personally.
@Stuntman_mike thanks! What a lovely message, You seem like a really decent guy, I must say.And definitely there are dangers in being too sure about things, yes. Well, there can be…I don’t think it applies equally to everything as a general rule, does it?
@pedro said:
I had a few DungeonMasterTea parties with some elves back in the days. Best decision I ever made.
EDIT: might have been the elves decision... still trying to figure that out.
I retract my earlier reservations. This has developed into a most interesting, and polite, discussion. My thanks to everyone who’s contributed.
“Worked” is not really scientific rigor, and placebo effect is not going to be taken into account by simply writing something in a diary.
Without a statistical methodology, a control, peer review, etc. there is no scientific rigor.
Religion, magic, mysticism, etc. rely on blind faith, so rigorously applied scrutiny and subsequent results usually falls on deaf ears. Just look at how often religious people state that praying to mythological entities works, yet it demonstrably does not (or can be quite equally be explained by simple coincidence).
This is only relevant within our current technology and understanding, this boundary has always been in a state of flux.
The boundary of our understanding of the unknown, yes, but it hasn’t really been a problem applying it to ancient beliefs and demonstrating quite clearly that their guesswork and superstitious assertions were as faulty as expected.
If you don’t do the work, you don’t get the results. You can read the books and have all the theories in the world about why those people engage in that nonsense but if you haven’t actually done the work, then what do you really know?
Magic, Mysticism, Religion and Science - Perspective perhaps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
You think that controlled studies of religious practices and mysticism haven’t been carried out?
Sometimes people DO do the work and consistently DON’T get the results. Praying is a good example.
Besides the above, if you’re expecting others to prove mystical assertions, you’re shifting the onus of proof. If you have evidence that magic works, cite some concrete examples that have statistical significance.
You’re proving my point in that your not willing to try it for yourself and are therefore not the authority you think you are. I can’t prove to you what has worked for me within my own consciousness, I’m suggesting you give it a go and make up your own mind.
Religious practice is usually a way of leading your life, usually in a good caring and respectful manner, not usually hoping for a miracle. Prayer is mainly an inner reflection of your actions and intentions.
Studying this scientifically is difficult as there are so many levels, Physical, Chemical, Biological, Psychological and so on.
That’s the difference between having faith, knowing faith and of course faithlessness.