07 Nov '14 22:53>
Originally posted by sonhouseOf course, I know all this. What I don't know is why you think it supports the conclusion that observation is never direct. Right now I'm at a cafe and there is a tree in front of me. I want to say that I have a direct observation of the tree. That is, I am not observing the tree by virtue of observing some other object. I am not, for instance, indirectly observing the tree by virtue of directly observing its reflection in a cafe window. I am not even more indirectly observing the tree by virtue of indirectly observing its reconstructed image in the cafe's security feed. Even given the scientific story, there is still conceptual room for the direct/indirect distinction.
in fact, even direct observation is not direct. Light travels at a speed of about 6 microseconds per mile and a ship on the horizon would be about 6 or so miles or about 36 microseconds from the observation in time. That means if something happens on that ship after the light has reached you, you would not see the results for another 36 microseconds. So sup ...[text shortened]... etriment of the human race and most life forms on Earth. So do you really even observe ANYTHING?
Yes, I am only able to observe the tree because light is reflecting off the tree, impinging on my sensory systems, causing patterns of neural activation that are either identical to or eventuate in a perceptual experience of the tree. This is how visual perception occurs in creatures like us. But none of that entails, or even suggests, that I do not directly observe the tree.
Rather, instances of observation are instantiated in creatures like us via a causal story of the sort above. Scientific inquiry explains how observations occur, not that there are no observations, direct or otherwise. When we discovered that water was H2O, we didn't thereby discover that there is no such thing as water.