>Just because I formulated said ontology from sense perception doesn't entail that it references subjective concepts. My point is that calling it sense percept

>Just because I formulated said ontology from sense perception doesn't entail that it references subjective concepts. My point is that calling it sense perception will not make the subjective pre-conceptual experience of it go away. I'm not advocating a ghost in the machine here, but trying to show that neither the ghost nor the machine can survive as primitives when put under deep scrutiny, but I first need to demonstrate how neither can independently exist as a valid concept. >this sort of skepticism necessarily presupposes the very knowledge that it attempts to undermine, and therefore it contradicts itself and is literally false. Not sure I follow how this relates to the quoted sentence, but the problem with any explanation (physical or philosophical) is that it is always limited to discussing concepts and relationships between them and can never break the boundaries of what can be grasped by thought (this explanation not excluded). My attempt is to show that thought (and thus any object derived from it) is not the pristine reality, but something that comes after reality is processed. At most, thought can point in the right direction (e.g, understand it's own limitations).