When I think about the world and most of the problems we have today it seems like they all come from our advanced society, the technology and the government, the whole sociopolitical structure. So instead of analyzing every detail I remove it all and try to imagine what it would have been like as early man, still nomadic. The fact is that most of the problems we have today would not exist at all. And many of the things we perceive as problems may not have been perceived as problems to them. My most recent thought using this line of thinking has been about how liberating the end of a long hunt would have been for early man. Today we get home from work, if we are lucky enough to have a job, and know were going back the next day, are aware of hundreds of detailed complications in the near future, (this is not all bad many people love to play this game,) a caveman would be completely clear headed. On the days a caveman was lucky enough to have a successful hunt and get to a safe and favorable location, with a fire he would have had nothing. Perhaps some threat to his physical safety. He would have been completely in the moment of complete success (not in one area or small task) his life and everything in it was a complete success. He wanted for nothing he had completed everything he needed to do and could rest knowing he had no surprises coming his way. This should not be regarded as a isolated incident, the ability to achieve a consciousness so far out of our reach indicates that their entire reality would have differed from ours. To us it would seem like he has many obstacles coming his way from disease to famine to injury, and drought. To think a cave man would have bothered worrying weather he was going to get injured or die tomorrow is where our perception disintegrates reality. From the day he was born till the day he died a cave man was part of the earth, he wouldn’t have feared returning to it. These people cause, saw, and faced death every day, and were probably very violent, but when all their needs were met they would have experienced a peace you and I will probably never know. The reason I point this out is not to rally everyone to say goodbye to all material positions strip naked and hit the frontier, only to point out that cavemen experienced a degree of satisfaction so high out of our reach we cannot imagine it. And that the goal of society and science, after technology eliminates the need for fighting we can circle back to somewhere where complete satisfaction with life is achievable. When we get there we will know what to do, I for one don’t see a peace love dance party 24 hours a day, infact I think social behavior would have to become much more abrasive. Our perception is what tells us weather something is interesting or entertaining, we are all limited by our perception, and there are likely many sources of joy we are capable of that we are limited by our perception. This would not likely be a action, rather it would be a way of thinking about life that could unlock our minds as we seem to all be a slave to so many social rules.

“There are some people who believe that war is necessary sometimes to get peace and then in order to keep the peace. There are other people who will believe that war is evil and should never be entered into no matter what. Who is right? Is war right or wrong? That’s just an example and I’m not here to answer that question.”
That’s a moral question of “ought”, not “is”, and all has to do with dilemmas between two evils.
The fact is, peace (in combination with a good constitution, of course) sustains lives, while war worsens and threatens it – and it’s not disputed between different “perceptions”. No one with a reasonable mind supports war because the act itself will increase everyone’s chances of living a good life.

“Her version of reality was all about gang crime. That was because of her perception of life which was also became her reality. It didn’t make it reality for me and my reality was very different to hers.”
Either she experienced a different life from yours (which doesn’t make “her reality” different, it makes her life different and her perceptions of it accurate), or she felt victim to confirmation bias and fallacies – no reasonable mind would conclude that gang violence is all there is in terms of “life” or social problems.

Having that said, it’s difficult to understand what exactly her views were, from your description.

“You can choose to see that event as something terrible and tragic to which you will respond accordingly. Or, you can choose to see that event and something that inspires you to make something more of your life; living every day as if it was the last, so to speak.”

But the reality is that the person died – your emotional response and what you do with it isn’t what anyone calls “objective reality” in the first place.

“Other forms of life take second fiddle. It’s only a belief but the truth is many of these other life forms sustain us and were it not for them we wouldn’t be around any more. That is more a realistic than thinking that humans are superior.”

Actually, not because we’re at the top of the food chain (we wouldn’t be if we got exposed to wild animals in the jungle; even without that, there are plenty of dangers to humans from various animals) – but because the human mind is the most advanced one, and has self-consciousness, goals and desires, intense positive and negative experience, and a conscious will to live and unwillingness to die.

Obviously, many advanced animals share these traits with us, which is also why we consider killing a dolphin worse than killing a jellyfish.
Determining how advanced those animals are in this sense, is what “realism” is about.

That we depend on them to survive, or for life quality, has NOTHING to do with the moral issues concerning the “value of life”.

What you rather should’ve brought up is that another reason we value human life more, is because empathy is strongly dependent on identification, which is why we generally have more problems with bad things happening to people that are similar to us (or live in some social group connected to our own) – and obviously, it’s much harder to really identify with an animal.

That’s a psychological reason, and obviously based more on delusions than evidence based “reality”.
Our lack of empathy with an animal may indeed not correspond to their capability of positive or negative experience, their desire to live and their self-awareness – just as it obviously doesn’t correspond to the minds of people from other, distant cultures who we don’t care about as much.

“Even many scientific theories are just that; they are theories! It doesn’t make them so.”
A scientific theory is a tested explanation of former observations, and it doesn’t pretend to be anything more than that.

Anyone who thinks what they read in a science book is somehow the revealed 100% certain truth from the Source of Ultimate Knowledge, has the wrong perception of what the scientific method really is

“Am I being a hypocrite in stating this? Is this just my reality? I guess in some ways yes I am being a bit of hypocrite but this in my theory on and universal principles.”

“I have free will, because I have no choice.”
Peace out.

The thought that perception is reality creates a gap between people and that gap is constantly growing, those who embrace this concept are drawn to each other, and in the short term this is a satisfying foundation for a relationship, these relationships are stable as long as you never enter someone else’s reality without a invitation, (someone asks for your help and you point out where their perception is not really reality.) This is an enjoyable and easy way to live your life but I propose it is the fundamental symptom of “peter pan” syndrome and a destructive way to fulfill the need to be to connected to a group because you are connected in thought your individuality and independence are destroyed. This happens because incomplete realities are fragile and “perception is reality” tells you to guard them with responses like “that’s not my perception” when, rationally, you should be exploring what was said. Somewhere along the line the definition of growing up, for many cultures, shifted from having an insight into universal problem solving, to taking on adult responsibilities. I do not refute that adult responsibilities are a part of maturity; I only submit that the idea of perception being reality allows you to use your external circumstances to mask having never matured internally. We live in a world of action and this is by no means a doomsayer’s warning saying if we don’t change now their will be eternal doom, in fact its apparent we need to keep moving forward until we gain a full, or more complete, understanding of the nature of reality in order to live in it. Is reality so dangerous? And if it is shouldn’t we want to know about it and be in tune with it in order to stay wholly healthy. If we can’t fully understand reality shouldn’t the next best thing is staying as in tune with it as possible by constantly challenging your perceptions? I will, however, hypothesize that we have many dark days ahead as a species, that the bliss of perception being reality is a growing cancer with the potential to become terminal, and on the physical side we are in a race that is coming down to the wire: gain technology that enables us to settle in space keeping us safe, and untangling our fate, or we may all be significant effected by the many forces of chaos that exist (chemical warfare, global warming, nuclear war, disease, ect.) As my knowledge on these topics is very limited I won’t speculate on an exact time line, I will say that it’s clear we don’t have another 4000 years on this planet.

Hypocrisy is amongst many things people hate to be called, it is seen as a deplorable trait, yet we all seem to be hypocrites on a regular basis. I think this is a fundamental arena to explore when deciding weather to embrace the “perception is reality” philosophy. If you believe perception is reality nobody can really be a hypocrite. Because an action in my reality has different implications and consequences than an action in your reality. This is very true and is a result of the very fast paced complex society we live in, however in simpler times this would not have been true. The above scenario is merely a situation, it is true that the result of an action depends on its environment; however nature does have in place definite laws that remain constant. (Regardless of weather we have been able cataloged them).