[nearbuy]

Oh! That's the argument. You "reckon" a lot of things about perception here. [Apologies if I misread your tone]

"feels weird" means "seems unlikely" in this context. At the end of the day, that's the most anyone can say on either side of the argument. You can't demonstrate perception works the way you think it works. You're relying on your intuition.

There are some things we can state definitively though.

> I think language could technically fully describe the experience, but it would be an unimaginable language

If it can't be described in normal English, then the brain is doing something beyond what a Turing machine can do. That means it's doing something beyond our current understanding of physics and quantum mechanics. I would call that non-physicalist. You have to choose: either perception can be fully described in English, or the brain is doing something non-physical. Neither option is intuitive, but that's the consequence of the Church-Turing thesis we must live with.