Is subjectivity just a matter of context?

[bennyboy]

So, what is objectively real about the chair? Our experience of it as a solid object or the fact that it's mostly empty space?

Our definition of 'solid' describes a state of matter in which the arrangement of atoms/molecules are structurally rigid. It is not contingent upon density. So, there is no conflict here.

Maybe in chemistry or physics, that's true. But when I look at my desk, I see it as smooth. I perceive the flatness of its surface as a single, continuous form. Redefining flatness to refer to the standard deviation of particles from a virtual plane or whatever doesn't SOLVE this duality in thinking-- it brings it to the fore. Clearly, your definition of "solid" begs the question: it demands that all perceptions be redefined to conform with the "objective reality" of the physical monist model-- and then goes on to show that all reality conforms with the physical monist model!

This is cheating. If we are talking about the relationship between subjective and objective realities, then you must accept experiences as they are experienced.