Take it up with Donald Sherburne, Amos. HE said Descartes was guilty of that fallacy. I simply point to the complexity of the argument.

" Or are you going to commit the ultimate arrogance of asserting that these things are not real (except for yours) because they can't be objectified?"

Perhaps the PENULTIMATE arrogance is being sure that you have the final clarification of what is...or is not... 'objective'. As I said, if you pick the right premises, you can defend any concept and its status in reality. God can be defended from certain premises...and memories can be defined in several ways, some of which partake of 'reality', and some otherwise. I know I 'have' memories, and I also know that some of them are flawed & incomplete. I have my opinions as to where they 'are' and why they are so vague & nebulous at times...and clear in other instances.
I presume that when I die, the 'reality' of my memories will be even more fuzzy. Does what others remember of what *I* told them count as my memories?Nawwww... I don't think so. I think they are gone...but if they are not, I can't imagine what kind of realm they 'exist' in.

(I have most of those books on Whitehead mentioned in the article...you read some of those articles and then "Process and Reality" and you are not sure what is real.) (Present company excluded, of course...*grin*)