Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
The distinction between direct and indirect observation is not arbitrary; it is as objective as the distinction between presentation and representation.
|
I disagree. It would be difficult to get a group of philosophers to agree on precisely what the distinction was, so it cannot be said to be objective. You yourself seem to show some confusion in the matter.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
When visible light emitted or reflected by an object (light object, dark surroundings) or by its surroundings (dark object light surroundings) is presented directly to the naked eye, the resulting observation of the object is direct.
|
In the latter case, that can't possibly be considered direct observation. You aren't seeing the object in question at all. You're seeing the surroundings, and deducing the existence of an intervening object. It could instead be a cardboard cutout for all you know.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
The directness of the observation is not altered by the eye’s responding to only some or one of the presented wavelengths, or by the lens of the eye changing the path of the light.
|
Why not?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
Lenses, filters, and mirrors alter the path of the light, but do not cause observations to be indirect.
|
Certainly they do, since they change the quality of the light. Moreover, froma quantum perspective, photons are absorbed and re-emitted as they pass through a medium. The photons that you see are not the same ones that were emitted by the object, and might be changed in their qualities (such as polarization, for example, by a filter). How then can this be different from a more complex device other than in degree?