I didnt read the past few posts and I need to prepare for my travels now. Just wanted to point towards a link I posted in the books section of the forum to a book by Charles Eisenstein. I think it may be a very interesting read (or listen, if you take the audio recording) for some of us. Eltu probably would like the episode I linked about language ;).
The book basically is about separation and how humans specifically and modern humanity came to be seperated from nature and the universe, how reductionist approaches inevitably eliminate the full perception of the infinite reality, how any form of what we call modern science ignores what is outside of its own rules, it even has the example I mentioned about the numbering in it. Pretty cool.

I don't have time to read all the posts here presently .. and only vaguely aware of the dicussion issues.

Simply put I don't give a damn if your scientiic or spiritualist .. what I demand of myself or others is the principle of Tolerence .. we all 'see' through our own single lens .. what we are encouraged to do is recognize that FILTER .. and that we are not God's unto ourselves, but a whole and composite of each other.

We can not ultimately boil down any arguement to one side or the other, the only way to enrich the whole, is to see the whole, through the various perspectives of each other.
There is no single truth as what is true today, will not be tomorrow, or vice versa, rather truth as we understand it, just llike the universe is ever expanding.

Even Scientist's have proved that and Spritualists have been saying it a lot longer in all the scriptures' .. philosophy of the Meta Physical

Life is not limited to the linear .. or the shallow .. imagine what the Na'Vi would say about our discussions, they would have whole insights that are completely different, to be certain.

Your words shape your beleifs, and shape your world view, therefore you can not say that yours (or mine) is the the final or true one, that's shee arrogance.

If i do not open to hearing and seeing through the filters, lens of others, than I would stagnate, and quit evolving .. stop growing all together, fixated to an idealogy and a hold on time moment.

Expand your horizons by expanding your consciousness by being open to others, anyone can see with others that agree, but it takes a true level of maturity to take the time to 'see' it from the other side, from the point of neutral.

You don't have to agree or disagree, and technically your in no position to do so, unless you have successfully tried it. You can come back to your own and hopefully now broader perspective, enriched from the effort and courage to have experimented with the alter.

Or maybe you might if your most fortunate, make a quantum leap in understanding, and then become one of the few, rare, remarkable souls whom show us all, some completely new tangent that till then had not been apparent.

How will we know, until we've tried it!

By definition, gaining a deeper understanding does not reduce anything (except for ignorance). It causes superstitions and incorrectly held beliefs to be abandoned, certainly, but for that reason, those can not be regarded as 'truth'. By making basic observations and predictions, anything can be understood with time and the correct methodology. One of the main goals of current research is to unite all current theories into a single system that is capable of explaining all behaviour from the subatomic to the biological - it is just that without that, some parts, such as the latter, have progressed far faster than others.

Why do people keep using these vision metaphors? The whole idea of "lenses" and "perspectives" implies 1) there's an underlying object that we are looking at through the lens and 2) it is a 3D (read: very complex) object.

I'll expand on that last point slightly: visual perspectives in 3D exist because our eye processes a 2D information. This isn't true for 1D or 2D objects though; we can see all of those, because anything being obscured is physically impossible. Our eye can process the entire object simultaneously.

In the case of philosophy, logic isn't a lens on reality. It's the glass the lens is built from. Or, equally, it is a 3D perspective, built by taking all the infinite 2D ones, layering them on top of each other, and taking out the bits that shine through.

To keep going with the vision metaphors, logic itself is not a 3D object that can be seen from various perspectives; it is 1D. There is nothing hidden behind anything else, there are no shadows to confuse the viewer; it is as clear as a single line drawn on a blank sheet of paper.

It is, will be, and has been true forever throughout all conceivable times and spaces, that the 11th integer cannot be evenly divided into any amount of smaller integers. No information will ever change that, nor is there any opinion to sway. It is more than fact; it is immutable, eternal truth.

I think you'd get the best definition of 'who we are' by having a good viewpoint in both sides of the spectrum, spiritual and scientific.
Not only that, but it seems to make you a lot happier about humanity as a species. :)

Eltu, I've read your OP & skipped all the debating.

As for the OP - I see it rather philosophical, a koan even. I liked it :) & the video, too: it looks like a different universe with its different laws!

As for my point of view - my signature says it quite fine.

As for the debates... I stick to old good Dale Carnegie, not a spiritual, neither a scientific person strictly speaking, but a very common sense one; a professor of public speaking who had the opportunity to witness, judge & participate in thousands of debates. "The best way to win a dispute... is to stay out of it!"

In my terms:
"When a respectful & enriching exchange of opinions turns into a debate... Run! Definitely run!"

I think what they mean by a lens is something like this video explains.

Perceiving Reality - YouTube
(mostly pay attention to the part about us being a box and not perceiving anything fully. IDK what the kabbalah stuff is, I just used the video for the box/lens thing)

watch the first couple minutes at least, he's a bit wordy I know, but what he's saying is that we are like a box attempting to perceive things, but we don't perceive anything for what it actually "is" but what our senses perceive it to be.

I think that's what people mean by a lens at least. That we are perceiving reality indirectly from "inside the box" instead of for what it actually is.