Two different things: the idea of objective reality as that which best accounts for the observed intricacy experience, and the idea that there is something other than experience in experience. (In the second of these you might replace the word experience with the word consciousness, as long as care is taken that the notion of a witness is not smuggled in with it.) The common prejudice is to merge these notions together and hence to get entangled in realism versus idealism debates. More pragmatically, the failure to follow through completely on the second is what leads to metaphysical blockages such as the privilege accorded to the 'view from nowhere' - as if there were some secret access to a point outside of experience. What ought to follow from this is that experience (or consciousness) are in a sense false concepts since there is no boundary to them. You start out by trying to get things straight on the basis of your natural dualism and then you suddenly discover that the entire cosmos has been flipped inside out - or rather your model of it, because apart from that nothing has changed at all.