Ignorance is a choice, just like belief. The real problem is to get people to reject ignorance. The difficulty in that is that ignorance, like belief, is easy. Rejecting ignorance requires effort. That is why there are so many people who choose ignorance and belief over reason and fact.
Interesting belief you have there.
I believe that belief is inherent to the human mind, necessary for operation in the world. I see belief in two general categories: rigid and fluid. When rigid, a belief is maintained even in the face of evidence to its contrary. When fluid, a belief can change in nuance and substance based on life experience and information.
We all have beliefs and operate from biases that do not agree with others. I see this as natural and as it should be. Each person is their own subjective lens on reality, and no one person nor committee can determine what objective reality ultimately is. Once we think we have it, something comes along and blows away our vaunted conceptions. Life will never fully give away its secrets, we will always be left guessing. To me that's the beauty of the mystery. What we each make of it is our own journey, and we should not try too hard to fit our personal beliefs to any consensus.
What the GP may have meant to say, or have said better, is that Jobs had an incredible form of intuition, seeming to know from a long distance what was going to work and what wasn't, even when that meant doing something totally different from what would have seemed normal or sensible. That can't be written off as coming just from experience. Who the hell knew 20 years ago that Apple could possibly end up where it's at today? Jobs had something inexplicable (call it 'genius' or 'vision' or whatever) that most corporate execs lack.
As for creativity, I dunno, I think Jobs was pretty creative in his reformulation of Apple and its product line. Not that he was totally original in product ideas, and not to excuse his deplorable behavior as a human, but he certainly did "think outside the box." (I dare not say "think different")
Snowden has exercised great courage and fortitude throughout this process. I think it's fair to say that most of us here cannot imagine how we'd hold up under the conditions he's living with. It would seem reasonable to assume that Putin has thought long and hard about how to use Snowden as a political pawn. He basically has Snowden by the (rather large) balls and could theoretically leverage that any way he chooses.
So to see that all that's happened so far is that Snowden has "lobbed a softball," asking a semantically consistent and valid, if politically weak, question for Putin to prop himself up a little is to me fairly remarkable. Why not force Snowden to ask more questions and fawn over Putin's greatness? You know, say things like "I am so impressed with the upholding of law and order in Russia. Putin is truly a great statesman." Does Snowden hold some card(s) that keeps Putin somewhat at bay?
Moreover, Putin must have read this latest article by Snowden, and Snowden would be expecting that. He's free enough -- or courageous enough -- to continue to speak his mind.
Like the way Snowden (okay, the press) has handled the release of information against the NSA, I'm highly impressed with his skillful handling of what must be a very difficult situation. He has shown heroism for his actions in service to his country, while showing brilliance in surviving his circumstances. My hat -- heck all my hats -- are off to him.
I find it the essence of emotional immaturity to fear death so much we need to somehow eradicate it or even just call it "wrong." Death is quite right and quite natural. We'd do much better getting to know death as a good thing, as the natural term limit to our personal administrations, so that we can get out there and live...fully!
I believe the most powerful thing you can do is make death your friend. Let it advise you, guide you, make you stronger. It takes work, maybe most of a lifetime, but I believe it's well worth it, and certainly a much more sensible approach than railing against the bars of your emotional crib, screaming over not having enough.
Ergo, the limits of human understanding must equate to the limits of possibilities for the Universe. Trust external data before trusting your own direct experience. Subscribe fully to consensus rationality. While I warrant these to be useful perspectives when wanting to remain safe in a human constructed world, I find that exploring truth with the courage to look outside consensus points of view is far more interesting and enriching.
The effect of the precession of the equinoxes is well known by astrologers. Mr. Nye shows his complete ignorance of astrology by thinking that this is news to any of us. Another example of a biased point of view completely lacking in understanding of the subject.
The tropical zodiac is based not on the constellations themselves but on the signs that surround the Earth, 360 degrees subdivided 30 degrees per sign, starting at 0 degrees at the Spring Equinox. In Babylonian times that happened to coincide with the constellation of Aries. For the sake of consistency we have kept the same sign names, but no astrologer thinks that signs and constellations are the same thing.
Perhaps Mr. Nye should consider reading the first chapter of a good astrology book before he pretends to know what he's talking about.
This throws into question your reading of my post with any neutrality at all. You've made up your mind, I can't convince you (nor would I try). Spend some time with the system in an objective way and it doesn't take long to see the correlations. I'm not saying I know how it works, and astrology is by no means perfect or 100% consistent, but it works consistently enough, and enough people are helped by it, sometimes in demonstrable ways that conventional therapies do not achieve, that it's worth keeping an open mind about. But I don't suspect that will mean much to you.
Interesting. Is that your open minded scientific reasoning? Or are you such an expert in the field of astrology that you have the authority to come to this enlightened conclusion?
At the risk of receiving flames of/. hellfire, I'll admit that I am a professional astrologer. Any astrologer that actually understands the art knows that it's not a science in the conventional definition of the term. It is something between science and art, as it contains elements of both. Observation and correlation play a major part, then so does the harmonization of conceptual understandings, since it is impossible to empirically verify every possible combination of planet, sign, house. The number of variables is too great.
Astrology is not a hard predictive tool either. The astrological symbols indicate tendencies and potentials, but free will is the factor that determines how those potentials manifest. In my own practice I veer away from prediction and instead focus on the astrological chart as a symbolic reflection of the conditioning of the psyche of the person I'm working with. Synchronistic reflection is the key term here -- the planets do not influence us in any direct physical sense. Thus, 'scientific' is not the right term for astrology, but it's not completely not-science either.
Side note: I came into astrology quite skeptical, but found it interesting enough to study. Over time, through my own experience of seeing it validated again and again, I've come to understand the principles that make it work. And in the right hands and mind, it does work, quite surprisingly well. Again, direct experience is the arbiter here, nothing to do with blind faith or illusory thinking.
Could the second coming of Bill Gates be as monumentally transformative for MS as the second coming of Steve Jobs was for Apple? Or would it epically fail like most of Gates's attempts to be like Jobs? I doubt Gates would want to take that risk.
I want to acknowledge your admission of conscience, as that takes real courage, beyond whether we were to agree or not. Thanks for that.
Truthfully, despite my participation in protests, rallies, marches, etc., and speaking to friends and family about the certain doom we were headed toward with the vengeful reaction to 9/11, I wouldn't say I received as much flak as I was simply ignored and dismissed. Now not so much, but I also don't speak as loudly since, well, I don't have to.
What's really, really funny is that on/., we are all pro-privacy, pro-dismantling of the security apparatus. But none of us ever stop to consider if we'd change our tune, if one of our family or loved ones was suddenly, inexplicably killed in a horrible way--and then discover that said death could have been easily prevented if only X and Y agencies had bothered to share their information.
Hard for me to see any humor here. Sounds like a rather tragic state of affairs.
A problem with your argument is that it assumes that the current security apparatuses would have prevented 9/11, and there's no way to know that. It doesn't seem like the NSA is at all concerned with stopping "terrorism," they're more hell bent on spying for their own power initiatives. Are we really any more secure now than we were in 2000? I'd submit not. And if, after proclaiming the actions of the NSA and national security legislation as crimes against the American people, an attack occurred on American soil that killed innocent Americans, I would not back down but fortify my arguments against fear and vengeance as motivation for public security policy.
Knowing what we know now, can any of us truly say that we'd face 300 million people..."I know we could have easily prevented this tragedy, but we're not going to put in place the fixes that would prevent a future tragedy like this because we believe the outcome would be worse than the disease."
I would, and did, advocate actual fixes, not the sham of security theater we have today.
This is human nature. There is no answer, there is only the cycle.
No. Human nature evolves. Each cycle we get a little better, even if barely perceptibly. Defeatist attitudes only hold us all back.
I have the good fortune to live on Lake Michigan in Chicago, where there are beautiful mists rising off the lake as the waves smash into the ice piles extending off the shore, splashing on them, adding layer on layer of ice. Truly a fascinating sight.
This is the kind of winter I recall as a kid, blizzard of '78 being one vivid example. Snow piled up to the roof of our garage! It got so heavy that come Spring the snow melted to reveal the yard fences all bent out of shape. But the past several winters have been so mild, barely freezing at all the past two, that today there's almost a sense of a return to normalcy.
In "get off my lawn" mode, all this weather reporting drama is just silly -- when I was younger winter was like this on a regular basis. We were heartier for it too. I had grizzly chest hairs by age six.
It's hard for me to see Bill Gates beyond being a spoiled, insecure boy. He talks about all these grand visions (The Road Ahead, et al) yet clearly is out of touch with the real world and the realities of human nature to the point that he dreams up these fanciful dreams of utopia that only get taken seriously because he happens to be insanely rich. It's hard for me to see Bill Gates as machiavellian or otherwise diabolical (not that he doesn't throw a good capitalist tantrum now and again), because he's so clearly scared of being caught for what he isn't -- a man in charge of his own fate. He can't possibly be able to imagine living a life not saddled to his silver, free to be bold like many of the "not haves". If he were to no longer "have", then he'd lose the very thing that defines him -- massive wealth. His ego must be terrified at the idea that he is nothing more than paper and ink.
So he props up these grand visions and philanthropic ventures as a way to give validation to his existence, never manning up to working out his own inner deficiencies. And since he lacks the real world understanding to do so himself, he allies with Warren Buffet types to guide him on what he should do, swallowing completely their belief in the supremacy of the capitalist ethos. But his "plans to improve our world" always come off as childish and unworkable. Indeed, can anyone here enumerate the number of grand plans Bill Gates has put forth that have fulfilled their objectives in improving our world? (that's an honest question, by the way)
As usual on/. there is a great deal of denigration of religion under this post, and that's unfortunate. I suppose under the banner of rational engineering we forfeit any understanding of transcendent experience, keeping our minds locked in facts and missing the beautiful mystery right in front of our faces.
My point is not to defend the abhorrent practices of tyranny by religious leaders, nor the scared multitudes that follow them. But, just like any generalized mass of people, many (if not most) religious people are good people, like you, me and Castillo. The connection to headgear or any other religious garb has to do with orienting one's mind to one's sacred practice -- not because someone told them to, or to show off.
This isn't a question of whether God the sky fairy exists or not. It's a matter of spiritual connection, of keeping oneself grounded in sacred humility and service. It transcends morals and ethics. A Buddhist who does not believe in any sky gods may still wear clothing reflecting his sacred order. If you cannot grasp the power of the sacred, cannot connect to its guidance, then you are bereft of a singularly beautiful life experience.
I wonder if the airline industry would try to stop or slow this down. Every ticket sold to get from NY to LA via hyperloop would be a ticket not sold to an airline company.
Given the choice between waiting in long lines to be TSA manhandled, sitting on a runway for who knows how long, then suspended in air for more hours by a machine that could fail in one of any of a million ways and plummet from 30,000 feet for 15 minutes of sheer terror before violent death -- or getting on a sleek new sexy technology ground transport that gets me there sooner and safer, I think I know where I'd be more willing to put my dollars.
Not that flying will go away, of course, but this could eat considerably into airline company profits.
Consciousness is defined as, roughly, conscious personal experience. Nervous system-bearing organisms have it and tables don't...In theory, we could all be as mindless and devoid of consciousness as tables and from an outside observer's POV, nothing would change in our lives, our speech or all of human history.
If you can separate consciousness from the nervous system, as you suggest in theory, then why can't a table have consciousness? Table consciousness would be very different from human consciousness, without the response to sensory input that a nervous system provides, but it could have a sense of 'be'-ing even if that leaves out any awareness of anything else.
More to the point, it seems there's no reason to dismiss the possibility that matter/energy itself is conscious in some way. That, indeed, consciousness is inherent to everything in the Universe, including the singular consciousness of the Universe itself. Why not? How can this be falsified?
As to proof, that's difficult if not impossible with the collective cultural bias against a self-aware Universe. I'm not taking a stand one way or the other, but it seems a glaring omission of scientific research to not approach some of our observations of the quantum and galactic worlds with the reverse assumption that the Universe is in fact conscious. Where would that lead the research? Could research be forked with this assumption in mind?
On a somewhat related tangent, in my experience there is a kind of proof that anyone can tap into that is greater than any proof offered by science, society or religion: direct inner inquiry. While we need to temporarily accept certain things as truth to get by, it seems foolish to fully accept anyone else's point of view as truth unless it is vetted by one's own inner inquiry. Meditation is a great tool for this -- learning to simply observe your own mind, body, breath and emotions. You can be astounded by what you can learn by observing your own consciousness. Matched with the objective evidence of your outer world and more than a small dose of patience, you can go far in life. This is the result of "spiritual or mystical revelation" -- revelation from within yourself, resounding in truth that you prove to yourself through action and results. This is a completely different experience from a belief that is taught from "out there" -- be it religion, TV, God, or Science (to some, those are all the same thing). Those things may teach you truth, but it is only actually truth after it is vetted by your inner guidance.
Slashdot Mirror
Great, now we're going to start spreading our rampant advertising infection to other planets. Is there anywhere advertising can't go?
I guess reality hasn't strayed far from ridiculous Ren & Stimpy fiction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_dyOxAfEzI
From 8:25 on (though the rest is pretty hilarious).
Interesting belief you have there.
I believe that belief is inherent to the human mind, necessary for operation in the world. I see belief in two general categories: rigid and fluid. When rigid, a belief is maintained even in the face of evidence to its contrary. When fluid, a belief can change in nuance and substance based on life experience and information.
We all have beliefs and operate from biases that do not agree with others. I see this as natural and as it should be. Each person is their own subjective lens on reality, and no one person nor committee can determine what objective reality ultimately is. Once we think we have it, something comes along and blows away our vaunted conceptions. Life will never fully give away its secrets, we will always be left guessing. To me that's the beauty of the mystery. What we each make of it is our own journey, and we should not try too hard to fit our personal beliefs to any consensus.
What the GP may have meant to say, or have said better, is that Jobs had an incredible form of intuition, seeming to know from a long distance what was going to work and what wasn't, even when that meant doing something totally different from what would have seemed normal or sensible. That can't be written off as coming just from experience. Who the hell knew 20 years ago that Apple could possibly end up where it's at today? Jobs had something inexplicable (call it 'genius' or 'vision' or whatever) that most corporate execs lack.
As for creativity, I dunno, I think Jobs was pretty creative in his reformulation of Apple and its product line. Not that he was totally original in product ideas, and not to excuse his deplorable behavior as a human, but he certainly did "think outside the box." (I dare not say "think different")
Snowden has exercised great courage and fortitude throughout this process. I think it's fair to say that most of us here cannot imagine how we'd hold up under the conditions he's living with. It would seem reasonable to assume that Putin has thought long and hard about how to use Snowden as a political pawn. He basically has Snowden by the (rather large) balls and could theoretically leverage that any way he chooses.
So to see that all that's happened so far is that Snowden has "lobbed a softball," asking a semantically consistent and valid, if politically weak, question for Putin to prop himself up a little is to me fairly remarkable. Why not force Snowden to ask more questions and fawn over Putin's greatness? You know, say things like "I am so impressed with the upholding of law and order in Russia. Putin is truly a great statesman." Does Snowden hold some card(s) that keeps Putin somewhat at bay?
Moreover, Putin must have read this latest article by Snowden, and Snowden would be expecting that. He's free enough -- or courageous enough -- to continue to speak his mind.
Like the way Snowden (okay, the press) has handled the release of information against the NSA, I'm highly impressed with his skillful handling of what must be a very difficult situation. He has shown heroism for his actions in service to his country, while showing brilliance in surviving his circumstances. My hat -- heck all my hats -- are off to him.
Agreed. That Spanish Inquisitor fellow never could do anything right.
I find it the essence of emotional immaturity to fear death so much we need to somehow eradicate it or even just call it "wrong." Death is quite right and quite natural. We'd do much better getting to know death as a good thing, as the natural term limit to our personal administrations, so that we can get out there and live...fully!
I believe the most powerful thing you can do is make death your friend. Let it advise you, guide you, make you stronger. It takes work, maybe most of a lifetime, but I believe it's well worth it, and certainly a much more sensible approach than railing against the bars of your emotional crib, screaming over not having enough.
It's a space elevator speech. You'll have plenty of time.
That's rich. Seems Spencer is the one being more "Christ-y."
Ergo, the limits of human understanding must equate to the limits of possibilities for the Universe. Trust external data before trusting your own direct experience. Subscribe fully to consensus rationality. While I warrant these to be useful perspectives when wanting to remain safe in a human constructed world, I find that exploring truth with the courage to look outside consensus points of view is far more interesting and enriching.
The effect of the precession of the equinoxes is well known by astrologers. Mr. Nye shows his complete ignorance of astrology by thinking that this is news to any of us. Another example of a biased point of view completely lacking in understanding of the subject.
The tropical zodiac is based not on the constellations themselves but on the signs that surround the Earth, 360 degrees subdivided 30 degrees per sign, starting at 0 degrees at the Spring Equinox. In Babylonian times that happened to coincide with the constellation of Aries. For the sake of consistency we have kept the same sign names, but no astrologer thinks that signs and constellations are the same thing.
Perhaps Mr. Nye should consider reading the first chapter of a good astrology book before he pretends to know what he's talking about.
This throws into question your reading of my post with any neutrality at all. You've made up your mind, I can't convince you (nor would I try). Spend some time with the system in an objective way and it doesn't take long to see the correlations. I'm not saying I know how it works, and astrology is by no means perfect or 100% consistent, but it works consistently enough, and enough people are helped by it, sometimes in demonstrable ways that conventional therapies do not achieve, that it's worth keeping an open mind about. But I don't suspect that will mean much to you.
Interesting. Is that your open minded scientific reasoning? Or are you such an expert in the field of astrology that you have the authority to come to this enlightened conclusion?
At the risk of receiving flames of /. hellfire, I'll admit that I am a professional astrologer. Any astrologer that actually understands the art knows that it's not a science in the conventional definition of the term. It is something between science and art, as it contains elements of both. Observation and correlation play a major part, then so does the harmonization of conceptual understandings, since it is impossible to empirically verify every possible combination of planet, sign, house. The number of variables is too great.
Astrology is not a hard predictive tool either. The astrological symbols indicate tendencies and potentials, but free will is the factor that determines how those potentials manifest. In my own practice I veer away from prediction and instead focus on the astrological chart as a symbolic reflection of the conditioning of the psyche of the person I'm working with. Synchronistic reflection is the key term here -- the planets do not influence us in any direct physical sense. Thus, 'scientific' is not the right term for astrology, but it's not completely not-science either.
Side note: I came into astrology quite skeptical, but found it interesting enough to study. Over time, through my own experience of seeing it validated again and again, I've come to understand the principles that make it work. And in the right hands and mind, it does work, quite surprisingly well. Again, direct experience is the arbiter here, nothing to do with blind faith or illusory thinking.
Could the second coming of Bill Gates be as monumentally transformative for MS as the second coming of Steve Jobs was for Apple? Or would it epically fail like most of Gates's attempts to be like Jobs? I doubt Gates would want to take that risk.
I want to acknowledge your admission of conscience, as that takes real courage, beyond whether we were to agree or not. Thanks for that.
Truthfully, despite my participation in protests, rallies, marches, etc., and speaking to friends and family about the certain doom we were headed toward with the vengeful reaction to 9/11, I wouldn't say I received as much flak as I was simply ignored and dismissed. Now not so much, but I also don't speak as loudly since, well, I don't have to.
Hard for me to see any humor here. Sounds like a rather tragic state of affairs.
A problem with your argument is that it assumes that the current security apparatuses would have prevented 9/11, and there's no way to know that. It doesn't seem like the NSA is at all concerned with stopping "terrorism," they're more hell bent on spying for their own power initiatives. Are we really any more secure now than we were in 2000? I'd submit not. And if, after proclaiming the actions of the NSA and national security legislation as crimes against the American people, an attack occurred on American soil that killed innocent Americans, I would not back down but fortify my arguments against fear and vengeance as motivation for public security policy.
I would, and did, advocate actual fixes, not the sham of security theater we have today.
No. Human nature evolves. Each cycle we get a little better, even if barely perceptibly. Defeatist attitudes only hold us all back.
Google is jumping sharks in hell? They're evil after all!
I have the good fortune to live on Lake Michigan in Chicago, where there are beautiful mists rising off the lake as the waves smash into the ice piles extending off the shore, splashing on them, adding layer on layer of ice. Truly a fascinating sight.
This is the kind of winter I recall as a kid, blizzard of '78 being one vivid example. Snow piled up to the roof of our garage! It got so heavy that come Spring the snow melted to reveal the yard fences all bent out of shape. But the past several winters have been so mild, barely freezing at all the past two, that today there's almost a sense of a return to normalcy.
In "get off my lawn" mode, all this weather reporting drama is just silly -- when I was younger winter was like this on a regular basis. We were heartier for it too. I had grizzly chest hairs by age six.
A homeopathist would not tell you you're not going to die. A quack might, but there are quacks that have medical degrees too.
It's hard for me to see Bill Gates beyond being a spoiled, insecure boy. He talks about all these grand visions (The Road Ahead, et al) yet clearly is out of touch with the real world and the realities of human nature to the point that he dreams up these fanciful dreams of utopia that only get taken seriously because he happens to be insanely rich. It's hard for me to see Bill Gates as machiavellian or otherwise diabolical (not that he doesn't throw a good capitalist tantrum now and again), because he's so clearly scared of being caught for what he isn't -- a man in charge of his own fate. He can't possibly be able to imagine living a life not saddled to his silver, free to be bold like many of the "not haves". If he were to no longer "have", then he'd lose the very thing that defines him -- massive wealth. His ego must be terrified at the idea that he is nothing more than paper and ink.
So he props up these grand visions and philanthropic ventures as a way to give validation to his existence, never manning up to working out his own inner deficiencies. And since he lacks the real world understanding to do so himself, he allies with Warren Buffet types to guide him on what he should do, swallowing completely their belief in the supremacy of the capitalist ethos. But his "plans to improve our world" always come off as childish and unworkable. Indeed, can anyone here enumerate the number of grand plans Bill Gates has put forth that have fulfilled their objectives in improving our world? (that's an honest question, by the way)
As usual on /. there is a great deal of denigration of religion under this post, and that's unfortunate. I suppose under the banner of rational engineering we forfeit any understanding of transcendent experience, keeping our minds locked in facts and missing the beautiful mystery right in front of our faces.
My point is not to defend the abhorrent practices of tyranny by religious leaders, nor the scared multitudes that follow them. But, just like any generalized mass of people, many (if not most) religious people are good people, like you, me and Castillo. The connection to headgear or any other religious garb has to do with orienting one's mind to one's sacred practice -- not because someone told them to, or to show off.
This isn't a question of whether God the sky fairy exists or not. It's a matter of spiritual connection, of keeping oneself grounded in sacred humility and service. It transcends morals and ethics. A Buddhist who does not believe in any sky gods may still wear clothing reflecting his sacred order. If you cannot grasp the power of the sacred, cannot connect to its guidance, then you are bereft of a singularly beautiful life experience.
Looks to me like the comet is a sperm cell impregnating the Sun...then the Sun has an orgasm.
I wonder if the airline industry would try to stop or slow this down. Every ticket sold to get from NY to LA via hyperloop would be a ticket not sold to an airline company.
Given the choice between waiting in long lines to be TSA manhandled, sitting on a runway for who knows how long, then suspended in air for more hours by a machine that could fail in one of any of a million ways and plummet from 30,000 feet for 15 minutes of sheer terror before violent death -- or getting on a sleek new sexy technology ground transport that gets me there sooner and safer, I think I know where I'd be more willing to put my dollars.
Not that flying will go away, of course, but this could eat considerably into airline company profits.
If you can separate consciousness from the nervous system, as you suggest in theory, then why can't a table have consciousness? Table consciousness would be very different from human consciousness, without the response to sensory input that a nervous system provides, but it could have a sense of 'be'-ing even if that leaves out any awareness of anything else.
More to the point, it seems there's no reason to dismiss the possibility that matter/energy itself is conscious in some way. That, indeed, consciousness is inherent to everything in the Universe, including the singular consciousness of the Universe itself. Why not? How can this be falsified?
As to proof, that's difficult if not impossible with the collective cultural bias against a self-aware Universe. I'm not taking a stand one way or the other, but it seems a glaring omission of scientific research to not approach some of our observations of the quantum and galactic worlds with the reverse assumption that the Universe is in fact conscious. Where would that lead the research? Could research be forked with this assumption in mind?
On a somewhat related tangent, in my experience there is a kind of proof that anyone can tap into that is greater than any proof offered by science, society or religion: direct inner inquiry. While we need to temporarily accept certain things as truth to get by, it seems foolish to fully accept anyone else's point of view as truth unless it is vetted by one's own inner inquiry. Meditation is a great tool for this -- learning to simply observe your own mind, body, breath and emotions. You can be astounded by what you can learn by observing your own consciousness. Matched with the objective evidence of your outer world and more than a small dose of patience, you can go far in life. This is the result of "spiritual or mystical revelation" -- revelation from within yourself, resounding in truth that you prove to yourself through action and results. This is a completely different experience from a belief that is taught from "out there" -- be it religion, TV, God, or Science (to some, those are all the same thing). Those things may teach you truth, but it is only actually truth after it is vetted by your inner guidance.