Hi Derrick,

In your most recent formulation -- http://philpapers.org/post/3691 -- your first premise mentions 1/10 second as a rough minimal calculation from the time the light is at the EYES until some point at which an associated conscious experience is happening.  So, at best, your premises support the conclusion that it's impossible for there to be a direct perception of something external to the head, beyond the eyes.  

So, you overstate your case when you say that your premises imply that it is impossible to perceive the world directly.  For your premises are consistent with the possibility of perceiving at least some of what is in the head directly, which is what Bertrand Russell, for the last 50 or so years of his life, took to be the proper lesson of the time-lag argument.

Cheers, 

James Grindeland