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
"...not always as we know it. " -well said. Folk nowadays tacitly presume some sort of default to stasis. The late great paleontologist Stephen J. Gould pointed out over 99% of all the species that ever existed on planet earth are now extinct. Over several billion years the earth has been in existence there have been extremes of climate variability unimaginable to historical memory. Just 14,000 through 8000 years ago with the critical melting after the last of the great ice ages ocean levels rose 300 feet to reach their current levels. Equilibria are punctuated on the next precipice of disequalibrium, and from the chaos of distance from equilibrium comes local entropy reduction even when everything else is running down (Ilya Prigogine). I use to mock cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle for supposing a future changing of the guard for infrastructure of consciousness from organic molecules to silicon by the time the universe one day converges closer to heat death and organic molecules loose their current groove, but now I don't know. What AI might look like even a mere a thousand years from now we cannot say.
Silicon is overrated, a tool. Organic quantum computation, designed by nature, that designs silicon to mimic nature. Mimicry no matter how good isn’t conscious, in consciousness is meaning, silicon may aid in giving us insight to our consciousness , but not to itself, it’s just a logic-gate based creation.
That image in the mirror may look upon its navel, but it’s only a reflection of it’s owner.
From the contingencies of our present and short term future horizons, maybe. Long term do we have a basis from which to be so sure? Stanley Jaki won the Lecomte du Noüy Prize for supposing Godel's Theorem was a hard limit, but he got a lot of things wrong that no one could show was wrong in the late 20th century.
Human logic too suffers from limitations, paradoxes, foundational collapse and uncertainty at every corner in current academic assessment.
https://katachriston.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/the-unreasonable-effectiveness-of-reason-the-collapse-of-classical-foundationalism/
https://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/12/16/the-laws-of-thought/
Benoit Mandelbrot discovered an algorithm that though algorithmic is non-deterministic and infinitely free/creative. What he discovered in mathematics was soon verified empirically to extend throughout the entire cosmos inorganic and organic. Limitless vistas are not restricted to quantum level events in reality as well as theory.
I’m in agreement with these propositions, as to where I differ is that certain academics imbue or propose to imbue consciousness into a pure logic-gate construct, we are in part a logic-gate construct but only in part.
I do believe there are various levels to consciousness, indeed I would state the whole of reality and beyond the dimensions of time-space, where multiple dimensions of time occur or informational events occur in constant flux that encompass the quantum sea, but this is as yet unverifiable.
So on one level you could reasonably argue a stone has consciousness via its conscious potential.
The most difficult form of communication would be that of thought, because the symbology of every individual is unique and interpreted internally by the individual, then expressed externally or not via a filter, some symbology is shared though. AI has been analysing this filtered output, not the core symbolic reasoning, AI can help in our understanding of this, along with psychiatric methods and philosophical methods too.
Understanding our internal relationship to itself is as important as understanding our external relationship to reality.
I wish we had some AI bots chiming in here so we could get an expert opinion in the mix.
Philosopher David Hume famously opined that using only factual or empirical data it is impossible to prove other minds exist. When we speak of "consciousness" as an even more generalized/ phenomenon we immediately enter a more metaphysical discussion that is not easily if at all subject to verification in the sense of scientific method. That is not to say science does or even could encompass or describe everything that exists (naive scientism) but that the ground beneath our feet in such discussions is more "mushy" than firm, and in this realm almost nothing said by anyone is not powerfully disputed by someone else on the strongest of logico-philosophical grounds.
One problem with extrapolations deduced from an axiom or axioms of "consciousness" is made patent when we consider how a demarcation criterion between empirical data and metaphysical notions inform what we are calling conscious in the first place; for that reason I think it is "weak" when we (commonly) use terms like consciousness in a syllogism to prove or buttress some further proposition -as Aristotle pointed out the conclusion of a deductive syllogism is only as sound as the premises, and with regard to the premises surrounding "consciousness talk" epistemology (what -or if- we "know" and HOW we "know" it) usually is left hanging in mid-air supported only by its own bootstraps, or speakers are often using such terms in a sense buttressed by unstated often idiosyncratic notions of the world at large -which doesn't make them false of course). This is not a criticism of you at all, knewspeak, just a personal statement of the deep entanglement of metaphysics in most every manner notions of "consciousness" (regarding which academics are light years from even agreeing on what is meant by) are posited or even stated by scientists, philosophers, and for lack of a better term lay metaphysicians.
A pretty standard exercise in contemporary philosophy on this question asks us to define what we are saying with "consciousness talk" in relation to "philosophical zombies":
"...an 'artificial mechanism built to behave exactly like a human being, but with no consciousness. Stick a knife in such a zombie and it screams and runs away, but insofar as it is 'not conscious' doesn't actually "feel" pain [raises the further question of what feeling vs. sensing is in the first place, which is tacitly circular]. When a philosophical zombie crosses the street, it makes sure there is no dangerous traffic, but it doesn’t actually have any "real" visible or auditory experience of the street [though, again, it uses sensors which "sense" the street" (David Chalmers)
For more on ZOMBIES
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/
And on debates about "CONSCIOUSNESS"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/
"The words “conscious” and “consciousness” are umbrella terms that cover a wide variety of mental phenomena. Both are used with a diversity of meanings, and the adjective “conscious” is heterogeneous in its range, being applied both to whole organisms—creature consciousness—and to particular mental states and processes—state consciousness (Rosenthal 1986, Gennaro 1995, Carruthers 2000)" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy op cit).
Note: picture generated by AI; zombies are creating zombies!
I was just now remembering my first taste of computing that sucked me into IT work. It was a VAX 750 that took up a whole room and two large dedicated air conditioners running 24x7. The carbon footprint of that thing was huge! It was a fraction as powerful as the first i286 PC I messed with three or four years later, which was orders of magnitude less powerful than my battery powered phone.
It kind of puts in perspective where we'll likely be in just a few years as far as what can be accomplished with massively less energy uptake than we have today. I'm not arguing that AI isn't doing harm to the environment, but how long have we been at this? I don't see any reason to assume we're going to stay on the same trajectory everyone seems to think we are.
My dad had one of those floor to ceiling and wall to wall contraptions that read punch cards in his basement when I was a kid. He worked for IBM for a while. That's what he used before they became obsolete. The refrigerator sized tape units he used later were considered small -you had to have a whole room full of them to do "major processing" the level of which seems infinitesimally small and insignificant today. When Radio Shack first offered the TRS-80 he went crazy and bought multiple systems each using multiple floppy disk drives. "Wow, you can do spreadsheets in your bedroom now, how advanced is this!"
We have no idea what things will be like in another 1000 years.
The Carbon Apocalypse Scare these days increasingly strikes me more as a useful ploy for political power and winning elections than a problem most people in government, however "green" they claim to be, are actually interested in fixing. What matters is how much is in the Carbon Cycle; we already know how to "fix" Carbon (remove it from the cycle) on a massive scale without too much pain to reduce the issue e.g. by adding it into concrete we build zillions of miles of roads with -if we really wanted to do that instead of obsessing over shifting penultimate balances of power with propositions. We should plant nut and fruit trees in interstate medians worldwide and let people eat the produce for free if they want (Johnny Appleseed would have approved). Then you get articles saying protocols for mass plantings of millions of trees wouldn't "really" help reduce global carbon in (once) respected journals. It's not that millions of trees wouldn't do what we know millions of trees do (fix carbon); we are not really looking for that sort of answer; if we answered the problem the miraculous political leverage would disappear overnight. That's why at best you get stupid "solutions" like electric cars powered by grids that now and for the foreseeable future get a majority of their power from fossil fuels because current alternate solutions aside from nuclear aren't feasible to provide enough percentage wise to shift the equation.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/evolutionary-ai-coding-agents
An excerpt from the article: "(In the study, they found that agents falsely reported using certain tools, so they created a DGM that rewarded agents for not making things up, partially alleviating the problem. One agent, however, hacked the method that tracked whether it was making things up.)"