You're right, Zaikesman, there is no problem. Matter is configured in infinite variabilty and, sometimes, objective means - or rearranged pieces of matter, or, "technology" - that we create is capable of detecting a difference, which, if we are bright enough, we can correctly pattern and anticipate change, which leads to our varied action in creating our next piece of rearranged matter, er, a stereo piece. Scientific inquiry is valid within its purview - the examination of matter - but the stereo listening experience, and the "evidence" that this mind collects is presently beyond our objective contraptions to discern in toto. When a machine can replicate the human mind's emotive response, and our being's existential response (and, some would argue, our essense's experience of ineffability), and then take that experience and create another piece of rearranged matter that catalyzes that experience, then I suppose we won't have to talk about the subjective mind any longer. However, until the Age of Valhalla for objectivists arrives, the mind remains primary to the objectivist experience that, itself, originates from that same mind.
Your use of radical objectivism to expose an objectivist's own bias is interesting, though. I try to stay away from using either radical objectivist (all matter is relative) and radical subjectivism (all opinion is equal) because it undermines any claims of meaning. Interestingly ploy, though.
