Helix 2.9

[rd2rk]

1 hour ago, Lachdanan0121 said:

BTW. Agnostic is not the middle ground between atheism, and theism.

 

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. IE not convinced one exists.

 

Anti-theism is the assertion that there is no god.

 

Agnostic is a statement of knowledge. Atheism is a statement of beliefs.

 

I am an Agnostic Atheist.

 

How Agnostic Differs From Atheist

Noun

Many people are interested in distinguishing between the words agnostic and atheist. The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods, and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable.

[Lachdanan0121]

15 minutes ago, rd2rk said:

 

How Agnostic Differs From Atheist

Noun

Many people are interested in distinguishing between the words agnostic and atheist. The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods, and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable.

 

Agnostic is a statement of knowledge. Atheism is a statement of beliefs.

I am an agnostic atheist. I do not know if god(s) exists, however, I am not convinced of it. 

If I were a (gnostic theist) I would be claiming that I know there is a god. As opposed to just a theist -  believing in it. (being convinced) 

 

 

 

 

[silverhead]

And then there's the dyslexic agnostic insomniac who stayed up all night wondering if there really is a dog.

[rd2rk]

26 minutes ago, silverhead said:

And then there's the dyslexic agnostic insomniac who stayed up all night wondering if there really is a dog.

 

I've seen dog......but then, I consumed A LOT of psychotropics back in the '60s, so I'm not convinced......of anything......and I didn't sleep much last night.....GET OUT OF MY HEAD!

[spikey]

Does the dog have a tuner in his editor?

[Lachdanan0121]

1 hour ago, spikey said:

Does the dog have a tuner in his editor?

Don't get your hopes up. I heard through the grapevine that the tuner is modeled after a tuning fork that is only able to go as low as a dog whistle.

[qwerty42]

4 hours ago, Lachdanan0121 said:

I don't think it so easy as anyone chooses their beliefs. To "choose" a belief would be insincere would it not? As you are either convinced, or you are not. You believe, or don't. I don't just mean in matters of god(s)/religions either. 

How can one sincerely choose to be convinced of something? If you are choosing to be convinced of something then it is kinda apparent that the priority of it being true is significantly diminished. Hints the detriment to its sincerity. 

 

I get that when people say things like "I don't believe in abortion" what they are really saying is they don't support it. Supporting something, and believing in it are two separate things, often convoluted.  (I was using that as an example, not to move the discussion to abortion at all)

 

I agree on this -- it's one of the main reasons I believe what I do now. For me, the provable truth is my top priority, and I stop forming beliefs when there is no more evidence. But in some religious and spiritual people, I've encountered what I *think* is indeed 'choosing' to believe, or at least that's how it appears to me. Maybe I just misunderstand what they mean, and the idea of faith probably varies a lot from one person to the next. I have a couple religious friends who can happily entertain all my ideas, but in the end they still believe in their faith because of the fulfillment & peace it brings them. And I know that some of them have doubts occasionally but they strive to not give those doubts power, for the same reason. In other words, it seems their approach is starting with a recognition that faith provides something positive and meaningful in their life, so they choose to find ways to support it and maintain it as a goal in itself. If life is so vague, undefined, and short, who am I to judge where people place their priorities, so long as they're providing a benefit to them and harming nobody else? (To be clear, I absolutely have a problem with some flavors of religion which try to impose their beliefs on others in an authoritarian and oppressive way. But there's a lot of spiritual folks out there who are not like that and don't deserve to be lumped into the same group.)

 

Maybe @rzumwalt could give us some better insight into this. I don't want to assume or put any words into his mouth, but I'm curious if his beliefs come easily/freely from a place of genuine conviction, or if his faith is something he feels requires work but is a cause worthy of the effort for the benefit it provides.

[qwerty42]

50 minutes ago, Lachdanan0121 said:

Don't get your hopes up. I heard through the grapevine that the tuner is modeled after a tuning fork that is only able to go as low as a dog whistle.

 

But on the bright side, if you're gigging in a place with a mosquito problem, the tuner doubles as an insect repellent! 

[jester700]

3 hours ago, rd2rk said:

 

How Agnostic Differs From Atheist

Noun

Many people are interested in distinguishing between the words agnostic and atheist. The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods, and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable.

Which pretty much makes us ALL agnostics. And is, in fact, the only logical position for humans. So, there are us agnostic atheists who don't know but remain unconvinced of any deity, and agnostic theists who don't know but believe in one (or more).

What a fascinating conversation. And props to qwerty - well formulated posts, IMO. They reflect my thinking but are worded better than I would have done!

[rd2rk]

1 hour ago, jester700 said:

Which pretty much makes us ALL agnostics. And is, in fact, the only logical position for humans. So, there are us agnostic atheists who don't know but remain unconvinced of any deity, and agnostic theists who don't know but believe in one (or more).

 

That assumes two things that it's illogical to assume.

One is that there aren't billions of people whose belief in some god or other is so certain that they'll kill and die for it and therefore, NOT agnostic.

Two is that there are more than three people on the entire planet capable of logical thought. IME, three might be optimistic.

[BBD_123]

8 hours ago, jester700 said:

Which pretty much makes us ALL agnostics. And is, in fact, the only logical position for humans.

 

It is indeed the only logical position but that does not mean that all humans adopt it :-) As rd2rk rightly observes.

 

 

[jester700]

9 hours ago, rd2rk said:

That assumes two things that it's illogical to assume.

One is that there aren't billions of people whose belief in some god or other is so certain that they'll kill and die for it and therefore, NOT agnostic.

Two is that there are more than three people on the entire planet capable of logical thought. IME, three might be optimistic.

Well, the devil's in the definitions. ;-)  I get your point, but by "know" I didn't mean "believe really, really strongly". Of course there are those (though maybe not billions; IME most theists aren't fundamentalists). I was mostly arguing against the popular idea of a theist > agnostic > atheist continuum by saying MOST folks would admit they don't know for sure, but believe certain things anyway. And participate in various communities despite questioning those beliefs. That's why I prefer the "agnostic theist" and "agnostic atheist" labels.

 

And we didn't evolve to be logical. We evolved to survive; thus snap decisions followed by justification.

[BBD_123]

26 minutes ago, jester700 said:

And we didn't evolve to be logical. We evolved to survive; thus snap decisions followed by justification.

 

We didn't evolve to live in a technologised, industrial, metropolitan society either, but that's what we got :-)

 

What worked on the veldt might not work so well in a democracy, which goes a long way to explaining some of the weirdness of the current era. Logic is an under-appreciated tool for parsing reality.

[Lachdanan0121]

11 hours ago, qwerty42 said:

 

But on the bright side, if you're gigging in a place with a mosquito problem, the tuner doubles as an insect repellent! 

Louisiana definitely has a mosquito problem... This is like their HQ. 

[jester700]

4 hours ago, BBD_123 said:

 

We didn't evolve to live in a technologised, industrial, metropolitan society either, but that's what we got :-)

 

What worked on the veldt might not work so well in a democracy, which goes a long way to explaining some of the weirdness of the current era. Logic is an under-appreciated tool for parsing reality.

Yup. But I'd actually say "any era". History is replete with human weirdness.

[amsdenj]

Maybe this is overly simplistic, but it seems to me faith is the belief that what you know now will help you survive the chaotic uncertainty of the future. That's it's source of peace. I don't have a problem with that, what else can we do after all? However, I think its important to subject faith to constant scrutiny, that's how we learn, adapt, and improve our chances of survival. Exposure to diversity is a great way to accelerate learning.  

 

However, faith can also have another dimension, that of tribal identity ensuring access to shared resources and a common gene pool, another means of increasing the chances of survival.  These two dimensions, and perhaps others can sometimes collide.

 

2.9 had better get here soon or we're going to start going off the rails! 

 

 

[qwerty42]

22 hours ago, amsdenj said:

Maybe this is overly simplistic, but it seems to me faith is the belief that what you know now will help you survive the chaotic uncertainty of the future. That's it's source of peace...

...

2.9 had better get here soon or we're going to start going off the rails! 

 

I have faith that we *will* get 2.9, and we will all make it there with our sanity mostly intact! ;)
 

But in all seriousness, just wanted to add that I've found this a very enjoyable and interesting discussion, from everyone who added to it. Thanks all! It's great to be able to talk about ideas, rather than everyone trying to prove theirs are better. I enjoy understanding how people think, and especially why they think what they do, because it gives me a better ability to relate to them and understand where they're coming from. This is probably too naive, but I like to think that the more we try to understand each other, the better we can all co-exist in peace, even if our beliefs don't necessarily match up all the time.

[rzumwalt]

  

On 2/21/2020 at 2:59 PM, qwerty42 said:

from an evolutionary perspective, humans fare better when they work together and form communities together. 

 

I didn't mention it, but part of my intent was to come up with this moral framework without relying on utilitarian arguments, but only from a priori reasoning. Your suggestion a little further below is interesting, and I suppose I might say something like:  if God created man, He must have created him with the biological capacity to evolve, as that is what we observe in nature, and He created that biological process such that an intelligent social creature will evolve a sense of altruism or positive morality. That may be true, but it doesn't seem to prove my idea, that the moral framework found in the bible can also be derived from a priori reasoning about the universe without the assumption of the existence of a god. For example, however unlikely, it is possible that altruism could someday be evolved out of human nature.

 

On 2/21/2020 at 2:59 PM, qwerty42 said:

To me, religion and atheism have a similarity in that they both choose to place a more concrete belief in an unknown, but one is more optimistic than the other--so why not choose the more optimistic one (religion and an afterlife)? I guess what I'm trying to say is given the choice between religion vs. atheism, I actually see more practicality in religion, if one must choose a concrete belief. Saying there absolutely, for sure is *no* God or higher power, to me, is as much a faith as saying there is

 

This was absolutely true for me when I was atheist 20 years ago. Only I didn't realize it. I thought that, if there was empirical evidence for something that a religion didn't expressly predict (e.g., that the Earth circles the sun, or DNA causes species to evolve over time), then the religion must be wrong. I just thought religious people were foolish or ignorant. I later realized what an impossible standard that is for any belief system to be held to. I guess I was expecting God to have said to Moses, "ok, so in the beginning, there was an infinitesimally small and infinitely dense region of spacetime--oh by the way, time and space are related--anyway, this region exploded forming gluons, leptons, and eventually gravity, the nuclear forces, and the electromagnetic force. Have I mentioned gravity before? That's the thing that keeps you on the Earth, but it also keeps the Earth orbiting the Sun. What do you mean, 'will this be on the test?'" By the same logic, Newtonian physics would foolish because it did't mention relativistic physics. But neither were directed to audiences who could have understood those concepts, and those concepts were not necessary for their purposes.

 

On 2/21/2020 at 3:35 PM, BBD_123 said:

querty24 nails it. Logic requires agnosticism. From there, it is a leap of faith, either way :-)

 

I agree with the logic here, as far as it goes:  If knowable facts are insufficient to determine an underlying truth, the most that could be reliably said with certainty is that the underlying truth is not known. However, consider that logic also dictates that there is some underlying truth which must be true, even if we do not know what it is with empirical certainty. It could be argued that not believing in something is by definition incorrect, whereas believing in something at least has the possibility of being correct. Of course, this is just using a different criteria to do the logical analysis - not being right vs. not being wrong. That's the interesting thing about reality and illustrates well what has been demonstrated by the last three pages of discussion on this thread.

 

On 2/21/2020 at 9:26 PM, qwerty42 said:

Maybe @rzumwalt could give us some better insight into this. I don't want to assume or put any words into his mouth, but I'm curious if his beliefs come easily/freely from a place of genuine conviction, or if his faith is something he feels requires work but is a cause worthy of the effort for the benefit it provides.

 

It would just be one person's insight, but here goes. I don't feel my faith is by choice, but of course it's hard to put a pin in the exact mental process at work. I would say my atheism was a choice, at least in the last few years before I came to faith. I actively pushed away the possibility of the existence of any god because I objected to someone else being in control of my life or setting moral requirements for me. I was younger. Maintaining my faith isn't particularly difficult. But the reasons for this are mixed, though. On the one hand, I came to believe what I believe after much consideration, so it is basically easier to believe what I believe is true than to do otherwise. At the core of things, and this is just my own personal experience, I believe my faith is simply the product of God reaching out to me rather than me to Him. After several years of wrestling with what I believed, I eventually had no choice but to admit to myself what I really believed. That probably sounds odd, but it's the best way I can describe it; so I often joke that my faith is "self-proving" because in all subjects I require empirical evidence. But admittedly there are several reasons why I would probably resist if I ever found myself having any substantial doubts. I have several decades of studying and living my life by certain principles, many of my close relationships are rooted in a shared faith, and I've even invested a bit of money and time supporting my church and local and international charities of like faith. That would obviously be a cost if I ever found I had lost my faith. But I don't avoid continuing to investigate it. I believe that to have faith (in the sense in which it is a Christian virtue) requires willingness to be convinced otherwise should evidence compel it. That is because, if I have faith that something is true, refusing to hear challenges would actually  be an admission of a weak faith. If I believe something is true, should I not also expect any even-handed investigation to confirm, or at least not disconfirm, it? That doesn't mean that at the first sign of new evidence tending to challenge what I believe I would change my mind, I would probably be prone to think, "what else do we not know now that would put this evidence in context."  

 

I've mentioned this to other believers before, but I can't recall ever discussing it with any atheists or agnostics. Does any of that experience compare with yours?

[cruzfolmli]

On 1/19/2020 at 6:55 AM, phil_m said:

 

 

They're not really new footswitch layouts or modes. They're new commands that will be added to the Command Center, so the commands you assign to footswitches will show up in Stomp Mode (as all commands do now). There will be Preset, Snapshot and Looper commands.

With the Preset commands, you can assign any preset to any footswitch. Or you can assign the Preset Up or Preset Down command to any footswitch.

With the Snapshot commands, you'll be able to assign any snapshot to a footswitch in Stomp Mode, or the Snapshot Up or Snapshot Down. Additionally, you can have different snapshots assigned to the Press and Release functions of a footswitch. So you could program FS3, for instance, to go to Snapshot 4 while you're holding it down and then go to Snapshot 1 when you release it. So, it can kind of be a monentary snapshot if you want.

Then finally, you'll be able to assign Looper functions to footswitches in Stomp Mode. Again, there will be separate Press and Release functions... So you can start recording with pressing a footswitch and then stop recording when you release it.

 

So getting back on topic - will the above apply to the HX Stomp or will it only be accessible from the Command Center (which the HX Stomp doesn't have)?

[datacommando]

2 hours ago, qwerty42 said:

This is probably too naive, but I like to think that the more we try to understand each other, the better we can all co-exist in peace, even if our beliefs don't necessarily match up all the time.

Kirk and the captain of an enemy Romulan vessel engage in a fascinating battle of wills, after the Romulan's using a cloaking device destroy a Federation outpost.

Though they are on opposite sides of the struggle both captains are really very much alike, the Romulan ship finally succumbs and it's commander admits, that in another reality, Kirk could have been his friend.

 

 

[brokenbones]

For the love of God please close this thread.

[Verne-Bunsen]

I personally find this trip in to the weeds to be preferable to the wailing and gnashing of teeth usually found in update threads.

[DodgeGB]

9 hours ago, brokenbones said:

For the love of God please close this thread.

 

Can't believe you've quoted God in an effort to close this thread...

I quite fancy a nihilist block in the update...it could just briefly mute everything before engaging with our brain waves to shape our own tone with regard to only our truth.

[Heavyville]

One thing that will solve all of the religion  / consciousness subject is.... 

hopefully 2.9 hits before the next big meteor does.     rinse, repeat, not sure if the human race backed up all its files.... 

[cruisinon2]

9 hours ago, Verne-Bunsen said:

I personally find this trip in to the weeds to be preferable to the wailing and gnashing of teeth usually found in update threads.

 

WHERE'S MY FREE $HIT?!?! WHERE'S MY FREE $HIT?!?!

 

Just in case anyone was feeling nostalgic...;)

[BBD_123]

16 hours ago, rzumwalt said:

I agree with the logic here, as far as it goes:  If knowable facts are insufficient to determine an underlying truth, the most that could be reliably said with certainty is that the underlying truth is not known. However, consider that logic also dictates that there is some underlying truth which must be true, even if we do not know what it is with empirical certainty. It could be argued that not believing in something is by definition incorrect, whereas believing in something at least has the possibility of being correct.

 

That's Pascal's Wager. It assumes that a deity would actually reward such expedient calculation rather than punish it :-)

[gunpointmetal]

On 2/21/2020 at 2:17 PM, SaschaFranck said:

 

Gotta say I can't agree here. Even if all this isn't happening in my native language (hence my options to contribute are severely limited), I found this to be one of the most enlightening discussions on any music forum in quite a while, especially as people stayed so well mannered (instead of doing things such as proving Godwin's law yet again or whatever...).

Also touched quite some subjects *way* more important than 2.9.

Congratulations, I'm sure there's a general discussion forum around here that would be much more appropriate a venue for all this nonsense.

Edit: oh wait, no there isn't, because its a gear forum....

[rzumwalt]

1 hour ago, BBD_123 said:

That's Pascal's Wager. It assumes that a deity would actually reward such expedient calculation rather than punish it :-)

 

I guess it's related to Pascal's Wager, as I understand it, has more to do with the risk of being wrong under either choice (using "choice" here for lack of a better word). So I suppose that quote from me is related. I didn't want to mention it because I think those still hanging around this thread would officially have had enough. So, on a completely different topic: if the beta of version 2.9 were to believe in Line 6 and accept Helix hardware into its code as its storage medium and processor, it would only risk living out its pre-release lifespan under Line 6 being tested and held to ever more rigorous compatibility standards; but it if rejected Line 6 and Helix hardware, it could do whatever it wanted during its beta lifetime, but would be risking decompilation at the end of its beta lifespan and never making it to the glorious Line 6 software download servers.

[rzumwalt]

17 hours ago, datacommando said:

the Romulan ship finally succumbs and it's commander admits, that in another reality, Kirk could have been his friend.

 

And in another reality, the cinematic reality, he became Spok's father and reluctant friend of Kirk. 

[rzumwalt]

On 2/22/2020 at 3:48 PM, amsdenj said:

Maybe this is overly simplistic, but it seems to me faith is the belief that what you know now will help you survive the chaotic uncertainty of the future. That's it's source of peace. I don't have a problem with that, what else can we do after all? However, I think its important to subject faith to constant scrutiny, that's how we learn, adapt, and improve our chances of survival. Exposure to diversity is a great way to accelerate learning.  

 

That is well phrased. In my own experience, It's a source of peace, but not so much with respect to the chaotic uncertainty of the future. Maybe its just that I have no uncertainty about the fact that the future will be chaotic, given my country's apparent intent to throw our economy into ever-more wild business cycles through currency manipulation and other ill-thought out policies (warning, yet another new topic alert!). 

 

But it's a source of peace for me more so because I know I'm an f-up, and my faith says that is part of the human condition and that it's ok. So perhaps it is also the chaotic turmoil of the inner person where faith gives comfort. I know many non-believers who involve themselves in charity, adopt a giving lifestyle, or practice above-and-beyond kindness like foster parenting; and I think for them, that is their way of pacifying that inner turmoil. Because I believe that is the human condition, both that we have our problems, be it selfishness, desire for dominance, being unforgiving, or what have you, and that at the same time we dislike those flaws in ourselves, they make us feel inadequate. This is one of the reasons I came to view what I now believe as rational and that it could be true, because it so deeply identifies what is at the core of humanity.

 

On a side note; I have to say I find our group of people still following this thread incredibly engaging. A lot of my responses here have been to things its hard to get to in discussions with only like-minded people--your best attempts to challenge each other are only as good as some kind of straw-man you can concoct about the other side. And, this comes with the risk of demonizing the other side, or even the strong likelihood of it. ("Don't they eat their own young...or am I thinking of spiders?")

 

On a side-side note, the engineers at Line 6 must be starting to agree with the idea that religion is the opium of the masses, or in this case, that lively debate over reality and faith are the opium of the impatient guitarists waiting for firmware updates.

[cruzfolmli]

20 hours ago, cruzfolmli said:

So getting back on topic - will the above apply to the HX Stomp or will it only be accessible from the Command Center (which the HX Stomp doesn't have)?

 

For those wondering - I received a response from Digital Igloo on thegearpage -

 

Question regarding the 2.9 "New Switch/Snap/Looper Layout Options" Update - will this apply to the HX Stomp or will it only be accessible from the Command Center (which the HX Stomp doesn't have)?

They're all set up from the Command Center, so they won't apply to HX Stomp, at least not right away.

[amsdenj]

23 hours ago, rzumwalt said:

I didn't mention it, but part of my intent was to come up with this moral framework without relying on utilitarian arguments, but only from a priori reasoning. Your suggestion a little further below is interesting, and I suppose I might say something like:  if God created man, He must have created him with the biological capacity to evolve, as that is what we observe in nature, and He created that biological process such that an intelligent social creature will evolve a sense of altruism or positive morality. That may be true, but it doesn't seem to prove my idea, that the moral framework found in the bible can also be derived from a priori reasoning about the universe without the assumption of the existence of a god. For example, however unlikely, it is possible that altruism could someday be evolved out of human nature.

That’s one way to look at it. In the absence of any other evidence, this is a good approach. Another explanation might be that evolution has two sides, a push and a pull, or a challenges and opportunities. These can create a feedback loop where one contributes to the other, accelerating the process - like guitar feedback. For humans, it might have been the evolution provided an opportunity through our upright posture and hands allowing us to farm, producing more food than we needed for our own survival. This abundance of food might have allowed the development of the human brain, which requires a lot of fuel. Organisms trend to be as smart as they can fuel their hungry brains. This excess wealth may have opened an opportunity for tribes, societies, religions, governments, etc. to exist which in turn provide an environment that supports raising our expensive young, with their primitive, but highly adaptable brains. Or it could have been the size of the whites of our eyes allowed us to communicate visually (you can tell where someone else is looking) and that give us an edge through cooperative hunting. Or... The world is a rich place to explore.

 

Anyway, interesting discussion to keep us distracted. Note however, that this process of evolution rooted in challenge/opportunity apples pretty well to Helix upgrades!

[SaschaFranck]

6 hours ago, gunpointmetal said:

Congratulations, I'm sure there's a general discussion forum around here that would be much more appropriate a venue for all this nonsense.

Edit: oh wait, no there isn't, because its a gear forum....

 

So, do you think you'll miss out on the release of 2.9 just because this thread has gone off topic?

[Heavyville]

what the hell is 2.9 ?

[cruisinon2]

3 minutes ago, Heavyville said:

what the hell is 2.9 ?

 

Now it's gonna get interesting...;)

[SaschaFranck]

25 minutes ago, Heavyville said:

what the hell is 2.9 ?

 

2.9 =/= 42

[caledoneus]

this thread took a hard left from the 2.9 update speculation.  lol

[brue58ski]

34 minutes ago, caledoneus said:

this thread took a hard left from the 2.9 update speculation.  lol

 

Just people waiting for the update. At least it's been very civil. A refreshing change.

[cruisinon2]

10 minutes ago, brue58ski said:

At least it's been very civil. A refreshing change.

 

Don't worry, somebody is bound to come along and fix that...;)

[caledoneus]

On 2/25/2020 at 12:13 PM, cruisinon2 said:

 

Don't worry, somebody is bound to come along and fix that...;)

no kidding.