Jump to content

Helix 2.9


ponsolle
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 1/18/2020 at 12:16 AM, ponsolle said:

-Output Meters
-Gain Reduction Meters

 

This is amazing, exactly the features I've been waiting for!!! :D

 

I'm gonna assume maybe in a month or two, this stuff takes time. I've never had a pedal before that kept improving, so that was a major selling point for me with this thing. Cheers! Thank you devs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
14 minutes ago, brue58ski said:

Aha! Got it! Now is what happens right before it becomes was.

 

It's a bit more subtle than that :-) Now is indefinable. Only the past is definite. But the past is permanently inaccessible - it has gone forever. The future doesn't exist because it hasn't happened yet, so the strong sense of self we experience as conscious beings may be less secure than it feels :-) Where, exactly, do we exist?

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, chasingMango said:

As far as you can tell

 

Since the universe appears to be about 14.5bn years old and anatomically modern humans have been around for no more than 400ky (a generous estimate), then there is good evidence that reality exists without us being here to perceive it...

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BBD_123 said:

 

It's a bit more subtle than that :-) Now is indefinable. Only the past is definite. But the past is permanently inaccessible - it has gone forever. The future doesn't exist because it hasn't happened yet, so the strong sense of self we experience as conscious beings may be less secure than it feels :-) Where, exactly, do we exist?

 

 

Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so.

Douglas Adams

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BBD_123 said:

 

Since the universe appears to be about 14.5bn years old and anatomically modern humans have been around for no more than 400ky (a generous estimate), then there is good evidence that reality exists without us being here to perceive it...

Existence was here before us, but doesn't a "reality" require "agency?"

Reality being our shared condition, and experience of said existence. Even if only a slice of it.

 

EDIT: I mean our truly shared condition, and experience of said existence. For instance our reality is we only see in a limited spectrum of light without augmentation. 

 

Of course I could be taking this too far, and you can just use existence, and reality as interchangeable synonyms. :) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lachdanan0121 said:

Existence was here before us, but doesn't a "reality" require "agency?"

 

The fiat before the lux. I don't know. Nobody knows.

 

28 minutes ago, Lachdanan0121 said:

For instance our reality is we only see in a limited spectrum of light without augmentation. 

 

 

Exactly :-) Bats and eagles have different perceptions of reality, but it's the same reality irrespective of what sensorium is used to perceive it.

 

31 minutes ago, Lachdanan0121 said:

Of course I could be taking this too far, and you can just use existence, and reality as interchangeable synonyms. :) 

 

You could, but not as synonyms for perception :-)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BBD_123 said:

 

The fiat before the lux. I don't know. Nobody knows.

 

 

Exactly :-) Bats and eagles have different perceptions of reality, but it's the same reality irrespective of what sensorium is used to perceive it.

 

 

You could, but not as synonyms for perception :-)

 

To be clear I mentioned nothing about perception. That was another poster. 

I was talking about reality being a shared experience of existence. Not the perception of that shared experience of existence. That is why I mentioned agency. 

 

Then again, we can just throw hard solipsism in there, and really mess things up! LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lachdanan0121 said:

To be clear I mentioned nothing about perception. That was another poster. 

I was talking about reality being a shared experience of existence. Not the perception of that shared experience of existence. That is why I mentioned agency. 

 

We're at cross purposes here. I've been trying to distinguish between perception (internal, subjective) and reality (external, objective) from the outset. So when you speak of 'reality being a shared experience of existence' you are introducing layers of confusion. Reality is reality. 'Shared experience of existence' is perception :-)

 

5 hours ago, datacommando said:

The Doors - Aldous Huxley

 

Not sure what you mean by this. I get the reference, but Huxley's argument was that perception is limited and reality is not. He believed - without any evidence, note - that psychotropic drugs opened the doors of perception allowing an improved view of reality. So Huxley starts from a position where perception is admitted to be limited and distinct from external reality, which is why I said that Lachdanan0121 could use existence and reality as synonyms for each other, but not for perception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, BBD_123 said:

 

We're at cross purposes here. I've been trying to distinguish between perception (internal, subjective) and reality (external, objective) from the outset. So when you speak of 'reality being a shared experience of existence' you are introducing layers of confusion. Reality is reality. 'Shared experience of existence' is perception :-)

 

 

I never said reality wasn't reality, the state of it is the same for us all. Shared. I just see it as the experience of existence, and not existence itself. (not perception) Not to be confused with how I experience it, as opposed to you. How we all experience it (how rain affects dirt, how gravity affects water, how density affects gravity).

I am not trolling in anyway, or trying to introduce layers of confusion. 

Though I will admit, I have been wrestling with the question "can existence exist without reality?" Or something to that extent...

I just always thought of the two terms not to be completely identical. Perhaps I am wrong, and I am making it way too difficult. Perhaps they are completely identical... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, BBD_123 said:

 

It's a bit more subtle than that :-) Now is indefinable. Only the past is definite. But the past is permanently inaccessible - it has gone forever. The future doesn't exist because it hasn't happened yet, so the strong sense of self we experience as conscious beings may be less secure than it feels :-) Where, exactly, do we exist?

 

 

Well I have to disagree. I just defined it. You may disagree with the definition, but I have a definition that is accurate. True about the past. True about the future. Where do we exist? That's easy. Right here, right now. I took one year of philosophy and came to the conclusion that you can philosophize your way into or out of anything and as much as you can dance around the truth with philosophy, it never changes the truth. I do find it fun to have these conversations though. Ya know, try and keep the mind thinking.

 

I just read another post of yours and I find this statement " psychotropic drugs opened the doors of perception allowing an improved view of reality " to be incredibly ridiculous. Improved??? I would use the word distorted. Reality is the way you are without any drug type influence. Otherwise it's constructed from that and is inherently false. Reality never goes away. You can change your perception of it, which in and of itself is false. But lying around stoned ain't reality. Eventually you come down and have to consume more to maintain this deception. An extreme example, if I'm in a concentration camp as a prisoner, the reality is, it's miserable. BUT, if I were to take the right drug, I could think I was in nirvana. But that ain't reality and after I come down, reality will give me one swift kick (or gun butt upside the head). In order to  maintain the "nirvana reality", I have to continue to consume that drug. If that's true, if you have to continually ingest something to make your brain maintain the reality you desire to perceive, it's not reality. Your tricking your brain into a false world. Like it or not, reality is what happens when you're stone cold sober. That must be why I like IPA's so much. ;D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lachdanan0121 said:

I am not trolling in anyway, or trying to introduce layers of confusion. 

 

I know, and I didn't suggest that you were :-) All that's happening here is a vocabulary thing.

 

9 minutes ago, Lachdanan0121 said:

I never said reality wasn't reality,

 

I didn't say that you did :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BBD_123 said:

 

I know, and I didn't suggest that you were :-) All that's happening here is a vocabulary thing.

 

 

I didn't say that you did :-)

Ahh ok. I just wanted to clarify. 

 

I will copy & paste this from my post as I edited, and I think you may have not seen it.

 

Though I will admit, I have been wrestling with the question "can existence exist without reality?" Or something to that extent...

I just always thought of the two terms not to be completely identical. Perhaps I am wrong, and I am making it way too difficult. Perhaps they are completely identical... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, brue58ski said:

Well I have to disagree. I just defined it. You may disagree with the definition, but I have a definition that is accurate. True about the past. True about the future. Where do we exist? That's easy. Right here, right now.

 

You can't define now. It's impossible. So you cannot have a definition that is accurate... :-)

 

3 minutes ago, brue58ski said:

I just read another post of yours and I find this statement " psychotropic drugs opened the doors of perception allowing an improved view of reality " to be incredibly ridiculous. Improved??? I would use the word distorted. Reality is the way you are without any drug type influence. Otherwise it's constructed from that and is inherently false. Reality never goes away. You can change your perception of it, which in and of itself is false. But lying around stoned ain't reality.

 

If you read what I wrote again, you'll see that I was stating Huxley's position, not my own. I also mentioned that he had no evidence for his belief that psychotropic drugs opened the doors of perception - in other words improved our perception of reality.

 

Maybe slow down a touch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, BBD_123 said:

 

We're at cross purposes here. I've been trying to distinguish between perception (internal, subjective) and reality (external, objective) from the outset. So when you speak of 'reality being a shared experience of existence' you are introducing layers of confusion. Reality is reality. 'Shared experience of existence' is perception :-)

 

 

Not sure what you mean by this. I get the reference, but Huxley's argument was that perception is limited and reality is not. He believed - without any evidence, note - that psychotropic drugs opened the doors of perception allowing an improved view of reality. So Huxley starts from a position where perception is admitted to be limited and distinct from external reality, which is why I said that Lachdanan0121 could use existence and reality as synonyms for each other, but not for perception.

 

Been a long time since I read that, but IIRC, Huxley believed that we were born with our perceptions wide open, and that as we aged our perceptions were narrowed by what we were taught was real vs not real - thus for example the (supposed) ability of children to see "ghosts", having never been taught that they were not real, whereas adults might perceive ghosts, but subconsciously dismiss the perception as "not real". Or something like that. I read it a long time ago and, you know, psychotropic drugs......

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lachdanan0121 said:

Though I will admit, I have been wrestling with the question "can existence exist without reality?" Or something to that extent...

I just always thought of the two terms not to be completely identical. Perhaps I am wrong, and I am making it way too difficult. Perhaps they are completely identical... 

 

I read what you said. The problem is that I'm not sure what you intend by the words existence and reality at this point. If we use definitions that I am comfortable with then if there is no reality (objective, external, universal) then there can be no perception as there would be nothing to perceive...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rd2rk said:

Been a long time since I read that, but IIRC, Huxley believed that we were born with our perceptions wide open, and that as we aged our perceptions were narrowed by what we were taught was real vs not real - thus for example the (supposed) ability of children to see "ghosts", having never been taught that they were not real, whereas adults might perceive ghosts, but subconsciously dismiss the perception as "not real". Or something like that.

 

While nobody would dispute that children perceive reality differently to fully acculturated adults, that's where I part company from AH. Different ≠ better. Different = different. And it's been a good many years since I read AH, so I too might not be 100% accurate in my memory of what he said :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BBD_123 said:

 

I read what you said. The problem is that I'm not sure what you intend by the words existence and reality at this point. If we use definitions that I am comfortable with then if there is no reality (objective, external, universal) then there can be no perception as there would be nothing to perceive...

 

 

none of you can prove any of this wrong or right.     just try...... 

 

If one says its perception is open....it is....end of story.    If i broke on through to the other side,  I did... 

 

you can continue to divide that banana in two and fight over it, but you're a lot closer to a primate when doing that.... and its still a banana.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BBD_123 said:

 

I read what you said. The problem is that I'm not sure what you intend by the words existence and reality at this point. If we use definitions that I am comfortable with then if there is no reality (objective, external, universal) then there can be no perception as there would be nothing to perceive...

 

 

I agree with you completely. Perhaps I am just having a vocabulary screw up. lol

Now that I am reading a lot of this online more carefully, (and I don't just mean on this forum)  it seems like people agree that reality is existence, not separate from it. 

I ponder a lot of things, and your posts just happen to coincide with some thoughts I had on the subject at the time. I thought it would be nice to bounce a few things as such. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Heavyville said:

none of you can prove any of this wrong or right.     just try...... 

 

If one says its perception is open....it is....end of story.    If i broke on through to the other side,  I did... 

 

you can continue to divide that banana in two and fight over it, but your a lot closer to a primate when doing that.... and its still a banana.  

WAIT!!! ...that's not a banana!!!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Heavyville said:

none of you can prove any of this wrong or right.     just try...... 

 

If the universe did not exist, then we would not be able to perceive it. While I leave proofs to mathematicians, I think the probability of the statement being correct is extremely high :-)

 

4 minutes ago, Heavyville said:

If one says its perception is open....it is....end of story.    If i broke on through to the other side,  I did...

 

No, statements aren't dispositive. I can claim to be the king of Old Siam without actually being so.

 

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BBD_123 said:

Different ≠ better

 

Agreed. I interpreted his meaning as that psychotropic drugs broke down the barriers to perception created by our learning about what society accepts to be real and necessary for survival, allowing us the more pure (but not necessarily better) perceptions experienced by children. My personal experience with psychotropic drugs was that if I accepted the perceptions I experienced in altered states, it would seriously imperil my chances for survival in the "real world".

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BBD_123 said:

 

You can't define now. It's impossible. So you cannot have a definition that is accurate... :-)

 

 

If you read what I wrote again, you'll see that I was stating Huxley's position, not my own. I also mentioned that he had no evidence for his belief that psychotropic drugs opened the doors of perception - in other words improved our perception of reality.

 

Maybe slow down a touch?

 

I can define it and I just did. You may not agree with me but I did and it is accurate. Have to agree to disagree on that one. Even though I'm totally correct. ;D

 

And I NEVER said it was your statement. Here's exactly what I said. I just read another post of yours and I find this statement. i.e. the post was yours but this statement  was not. Perhaps it is you that needs to slow down a touch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having never attended an institute of higher learning (intentional lack of caps), the question of "When is a banana just a banana" never occurred to me.

What is becoming apparent is that this discussion has gone bananas!

Up until now, we ALL WANTED 2.9, but few really NEEDED it.

We now NEED 2.9 to save us from this discussion!

HELP US L6!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, brue58ski said:

I just read another post of yours and I find this statement " psychotropic drugs opened the doors of perception allowing an improved view of reality " to be incredibly ridiculous. Improved??? I would use the word distorted.

 

Well, I read that as aimed at me.

 

4 minutes ago, brue58ski said:

I can define it and I just did. You may not agree with me but I did and it is accurate. Have to agree to disagree on that one. Even though I'm totally correct. ;D

 

Here's your definition:

 

On 2/19/2020 at 4:38 PM, brue58ski said:

Aha! Got it! Now is what happens right before it becomes was.

 

The problem here is that this is not a definition of now. It's a description of time passing. What I'm trying to get at is that while everybody talks about 'now' it is in fact impossible to define it. You can't stick a pin in 'now'. You *can* say it happens between the future and the past, but that falls short of actually defining any instant in time as 'now'. And since you cannot define 'now' then it is possible to argue that it does not exist. It's subtle, as I said at the outset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...