Personally I subscribe to a subset of the general quantum mechanical view that one creates reality as one goes along.
There is no tree in the forest to even think about falling over if I'm not exchanging information with it. In fact there is no forest either for the same reason.
"Sameness" or even this very conversation implies extension of "self" to "others".
As for behaving as though there were indeed a separate reality, problems tend to arise at the extremes of our interactive perceptual processes (the "physical"macrocosm and the microcosm) where conventional rationality does not seem to suffice.
Such insufficiency is also common at levels of "social abstraction" within "normal living" where there is conflict of consensus... each group acts as though its view of social reality is "correct" and applies simplistic "logic" on the basis of idiosyncratic axioms as though dealing with non-controversial "physical structures". This is an answer to dlowans "so what ?"
The fact that we can discuss a tree at all is the social reality..."large" and "small" are merely negotiatons which involve common purpose or otherwise.
My use of italics is an attempt to show how using language - a [Isocial continuum [/I] creates a semantic field of inter-related items within that field. Similarly self only has meaning only in relationship to others ...we cannot "define" one item in the field without reference to the whole field. (I'm not going to go into observer/observed perceptual boundary problems ...we've done all that before).
I cannot subscribe to a solipsistic view that there can be a "self" without "others" because the very concept of "self" has been linguistically acquired from others.
As for your "bacon" argument the "reality" of "bacon" lies in each persons relationship with "it". When non-pork eaters go shopping they presumably do no see "it" in the "potential food category"...in essence they do not see it at all! (Conversely, the starving man "sees" ant larvae as "food" etc.)
Existence implies relationship.
In as much that we share a common language we can talk about "liver".
The key concept is "commonality" of "pattern" of "experience" etc which involves consensus.
"You" ARE the sum of your changing relationships with "liver" etc ( all other acquired categories). Neither the liver nor you "exist" independently of your relationship.
Of course we "act" on the assumption of relative permanence of such relationships which the gives the pseudo-illusion of objective separate "existence" of the poles of the relationship. We talk about "the tide" without reference to "the beach"... Similarly we talk about the "self" as an "actor" without reference the mutual dependence of self and objects of action. "I" dig "the garden". Do not both change as this action proceeds. Is the neighbour laughing to himself "there goes Jack escaping from his wife by digging that patch of weeds he calls a garden" ? Wheres the "reality" ? Who's reality ?
I don't understand your objections within the paradigm suggested, and I reject yours as explored elsewhere as naive realism prone to the pitfalls of linguistic infinite regress.