A simple abstraction here: we put two high-quality monitors before our eyes and get all the data from them. Can we continue driving this way? Absolutely. This means that no matter how our eyes actually work, an array of RGB pixels is enough. I'd go further and say that a 64 x 64 grayscale camera at 10 fps is enough to drive a car. The real magic happens in the brain that reconstructs the 3D model and predicts what happens next.

> "64 x 64 grayscale camera at 10 fps is enough to drive a car."

If you had vision that bad, the State of California would not let you get a drivers license, they require at least one of your eyes to be 20/40. Anyway, the point of the GP is that the brain isn't the only piece of wetware doing image processing, but more to the point the current state of the art CV really is not up to the task.

And it really doesn't seem like it's going to be there anytime soon.

That is an analogy not an abstraction but if you had read the paper or the single quote I provided, you would know that even relatively simple eyes (such as those of the frogs which cannot see still objects) don't only process a distribution of light intensity and frequency. The eye measures other information that is lost by the camera including photon phase, arrival time, polarization, orbital angular momentum, linear momentum, and probably many more measurements. More so, this is done by specialized organelles of the eye rather than by the brain.

It's great that eyes can detect polarization and orbital momentum. My point is that none of that info is needed to drive a car.

That's true, but the main point is that current software still relies on sampling. Eyes don't sample.

And this is irrelevant also, because we can introduce sampling the way I described and can continue driving just fine.

I've thought about it and yes this does make sense.