Yes I understand the implications of perceptions that are not instantaneous but I still dont see a problem with that. While it is true that the sun could have blown up and ceases to exist at this moment, and we wouldnt know for about 8 minutes, but we would still know 8 minutes later. Likewise, taking a picture of object X takes time to develop but why would we say that that picture isnt accurate of the object? It is accurate at that time. Sure object X could have changed dramatically during the development period but thats not what the picture is representing -its only representing the information that was received at that time. So while yes our perceptions lag a bit behind 'actual' reality but we would just end up finding out a tenth of a second later...
Am I interpreting this correctly or am I wayyy off the mark?
I don't see any problem with the way you're interpreting it. All it is is an opportunity to notice the part Identity plays in knowledge.
Perceived data changes from one moment to the next. So why do we believe the star is the same object from one moment to the next? This belief obviously does not have its basis in sensory information. The star is an idea. We attach the ever changing sensory information to the unchanging identity.
It's possible to see this without the time lag issue. All the time lag issue does is cement the idea that everything is in flux... that we're seeing the world becoming
. But as it becomes, we believe in contiguity past to future.
So as you draw a bottle of soda to your lips, you assume that the liquid will remain soda as it goes down your esophagus (and not change into gasoline.)
This assumption is not empirically based. We know it, but this knowledge can't be based on observation, because we can't observe the future. We'll say it's based in Reason. Although we can't find a good logical argument supporting the assumption, although minds as great as Hume's tried.
None of this is any assault on anybody's right to operate according to whatever scheme they see fit. As far as I can see, "so what?" is the proper practical response. The answer to "so what?" is part of philosophy.
Can you really found your knowledge on observation alone? Or does knowledge inevitably require Reason to exist at all.
Reason is always there... operating on sensory information. The sensory information doesn't come first. It doesn't create knowledge.
Reason creates knowledge. Believe it or don't. And the story of philosophy goes on from here.