OK, DD, I'll take it on. But try not to be so snootty to my friends here. As John Sourwine noted, a fine aesthetic does not preclude a wide range (Just because we wear clown suits does not make us necessarily clowns).

Your points, condensed (as I read them):

1) Conscious understanding of the external world must derive from sensory input.

2) All sensory input must be preprocessed by subconscious mechanisms to present a consistent model to the conscious.

3)Without preexisting understanding, the subconscious cannot construct a consistent model to present to the conscious. Hence the conundrum.

Am I on the right track?

IF the assumption of 3) is correct, then the preexisting pattern in the subconscious must be supplied from extranatural processes. For example, God. Therefore, if all the assumptions are correct, the logical outcome is that God exists (God = whatever extranatural process you are thinking of).

If I am still going in the right direction, a few observations.

a) conscious and unconscious are not rigorously defined. You yourself cannot 'find' your unconscious. Therefore, it may not exist. Possible counterexample? A lens can make an image of a scene and project it onto film for examination. The image is developed blindly with no preknowledge of what it contains.

b) If I see two marbles and later see two more, I can visualize four marbles together without actually seeing them that way. A general description of a scientific experiment. I have derived a conscious understanding of a part of the universe without sensory input, by assembling pieces into a new whole internally.

If a) and b) are valid counterexamples of 1) and 2), then 3) evaporates as a conundrum.