Another Question for Mr. Gudeman

A follow up to a previous conversation. I direct the question to Mr. Gudeman, but anyone with a considered opinion is welcome to answer.

Sir, please explain to me once more why you regard pain as subjective.

By your definition, objective is what exists in all minds of all observers regardless of who they are or where they stand.

But pain not only fits this definition, it is the only thing that fits this definition. All babies cry when drawing the first breath of life.

If pain is not what exists in the minds of all, nothing is.

Each time I have brought up an example for your consideration, you made a statement to the effect that the matter had to be judged by the class of the thing being discussed, not by the individual example.

So, there are times when I am in pain and my neighbor is not, and there have been times when my neighbor is in pain and I am not, but there is no case of anyone not understanding what the pain is that I am my neighbor feel.

So, as a class, it is the one unambiguous universal experience of all mankind. Some poets and philosophers regard it as the one universal of all mankind.

Mathematics and science produce proofs that only the slimmest imaginable minority of literate adults in civilized nations have ever had in mind. Every baby and every farmer and every nomad and every tribesman and every nobleman and every fashion model and every mandarin of the Far East knows what pain is. Not all of them can contemplate the Pythagorean theorem.

The beasts in the field and the birds in the air know what pain is.

In what sense of the word is the Pythagorean theorem is objective and pain is not?

ADDED LATER: Mr. Gudeman is apparently not in a position to answer questions concerning his position. I withdraw the question, and retire from the discussion.