So you would agree that a tree would make noise, hence, the noise is real, and so is the tree no doubt. And if there were nobody at all in this universe, then these things would still be real. So then it wouldn't matter if one were conscious of this universe or not, it would still be real. Suppose we existed in an alternate universe, and nobody existed in this one, then you'd say that this one is still real, even though we're unable to consciously perceive it since we dwell in an alternate universe. To us then, an alternate universe is just 'an abstract concept of thought', but in this case the abstract concept is that of something real.
In connection to this quote: "all of reality is composed of matter ..." I have to ask that if you feel joy, then how can you describe it as matter in motion and what not, since your feeling of joy in this case is real to you. If you get a creepy feeling about someone, how is that described as matter in motion in your perspective. Don't you think that it can get very complicated thinking of these subjective experiences as matter in motion? Subjective experiences are part of reality to me, to deny them is to deny part of the reality I perceive, so to me, reality is more than just physical. Things that are real aren't only physical, but also non-physical. Thoughts, emotions, mathematical expressions, they are all part of reality. The idea of alternate universes are also part of what we (as minds) experience (hence a part of reality), and in the same fashion, the concept/idea of a triangle, or the image you have of a grassy field. So from what I'm sayng, I extrapolate that reality can be categorized among others as physical reality, emotive reality, imaginative/conceptual reality, and probably many others. These are all some of the things we experience subjectively, and so they are all combined into subjective reality. So, as we all can't deny, we are aware of our five senses, but also we're aware of emotions and concepts, and maybe more things that don't come to mind right now. The sum total of all the things we experience should be considered reality, otherwise if we leave out something, we aren't being scientific. Since we all have different experiences, we must conclude that we all perceive reality in different ways, but we all share some common things.
Bringing this back to the main topic once again, we each have more of a repretoire of subjective experiences rather than objective, because the commonalities (objectivity) between many or all subjective experiences (truths) are few and far between. How do you feel about this last idea, is it on decent grounds? Can you accept it as a shared truth between you and I?
So, what is more real to you, what you experience as physical, or what you experience as non-physical? Put it this way, I have a crush on a girl in one of my classes. When her and I speak, I experience things I can't describe physically. In physical reality, you just see two people talking, nothing very exciting, but if you could see what was going on beyond that, you'd see a whole lot more interesting and exciting things going on. To me, only looking at physical reality severely limits one's understanding. To me, physical reality is just a small "shadow" of what is really going on, and somehow our minds are tied into a deeper reality beyond the physical--one that isn't limited by space-time or matter-energy.