> it does start with a pixel accurate input Not really. Eye doesn't operate exact number values, not discrete, not even analogous electric signal. Even if we i

> it does start with a pixel accurate input Not really. Eye doesn't operate exact number values, not discrete, not even analogous electric signal. Even if we imagine that "image" is what is projected on retina (which isn't exactly true in our case), it couldn't be described as an array of pixels, because, as mentioned earlier (and as everyone should know already anyway) real neuron isn't even close to some "single number value storage", but entity much more complex. So, no, even then it wouldn't be pixel accurate input. In our case, however, "pixel accurate input" is that digital image of yours, array of numbers, that is, which is processed directly by ANN, but not by you. To be processed by your brain it goes through some pre-processing in the computer, is projected onto your not-so-perfect display, mixed with light from all the sources around you and only then is it projected on your retina, which also isn't perfect pixel matrix. So it is actually very much possible that these two images with very close, but different pixel values (which are objectively different for computer) indeed do innervate your retina in exactly the same way, and thus are objectively exactly the same image for your eye, which passes signal further to your brain. It just isn't fair to compare it to some ANN, because your eye isn't sensitive to pixel forging of that sort, but is sensitive to some others, which are treated easier by the NN instead. You may just think of it like having several filters of some sort on the way of the visual signal to your internal "cat classifier".