Stephen Hawking and Brick Houses

In our final exam paper a lot of people, myself included, examined the nature of truth. In my paper I argued that absolute truth (or as Doc OC branded it "big-T Truth") doesn't exist and discussed the impact that had on the motivations and interactions of humans. In agreement is Alva Noë, professor of philosophy at Cal Berkeley, and one of the authors of the blog, 13.7. In his latest post, A Little Philosophy is a Dangerous Thing, Noë criticizes Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow's conclusion that thew belief that perception of reality is subjective and unique to each individual is a, "naive view of reality". Noë makes a persuasive counter-argument, I especially like this example he gives:

I can find out whether there are brick houses on Elm Street by looking. In a different context, I can test whether my eyes are working by checking whether I see the brick houses. We don't have any grip on the idea of what we can see (or measure, or detect) apart from our prior understanding of what there is.

 But I'd like to here from the other side as well. What seems more plausible to you, Noë's assertion of subjective reality or Hawkings' and Mlodinow's that consclusion that all humans are born with "the conscious and subconscious mental models we all create in order to interpret and understand the everyday world"?