> the former are too close together to give stereoscopic depth information at traffic distances They're only too close together to give very precise depth info

> the former are too close together to give stereoscopic depth information at traffic distances They're only too close together to give very precise depth information, but they do still provide useful depth information. They also double the incoming light and SNR, which is why the average person performs better on visual acuity tests with both eyes than with only one or the other. > We have a camera, basically. We do lots of stuff with the camera, sure. But that's not sensor fusion. They're varifocal cameras with very good dynamic range that receive double the light input and that also have full freedom to move around, both rotationally and translationally, which provides, among other things, more depth information and better object boundary segmentation from controlled parallax and focus, and which involves the continuously varied activation of many different muscles and sensory nerves because they're attached to the extremely complex and sensitive proprioceptive structure called the rest of your body, which your brain fully uses as input when processing visual information. And we know that your brain uses this other information, because not having this other information causes reduced perception and motion sickness. So, no, they're not just cameras. And, yes, we do sensor fusion.