A sort of related idea was explored with this site, where millions (ok, thousands) of users evolve shapes that look like whatever they want, but likely with a strong bias toward shapes recognizable to humans. Over time, many common motifs arise:
You'd need another classifier to tell you "nope it's actually just random noise and shapes" ... hm.
Who gets to decide what is really a picture of a panda?
If we'd manage to craft a picture that could with very high certainty trick human neural nets (for the sake of argument, including those higher cognitive functions) into believing something is a picture of a panda, "except it actually really isn't", what does that even mean?
Human insists it's a picture of a panda, computer classifier maintains it's noise and shapes.
Who is right? :)
Kind of like the memes in Snowcrash, ancient forgotten symbols that make up the kernel of human thought.
Of course, if you're as clever as Tinbergen, you might be able to come up with patterns that fool organisms even without (1) or (2):
https://imgur.com/a/ibMUn