Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[GrandizerII]

I merely stated a fact.  Our brains are capable of processing information, even otherwise “visual” information far in excess of what our actual eyes can actually see.

This is an example of there being no parity between what visual cues we can contemplate and process, and what visual cues our eyes provide.

Ok so we're clear that we're comparing the components within an organism. We're not making cross-species comparisons.

Now, and hopefully this doesn't instigate another rabbit hole rant, but I'm going to ask you for evidence. The reason being, is that it seems difficult to measure how much visual information the brain can handle, without a way to present that visual information to the brain. At least not through the eyes since your claim is that they are insufficient to present it.

Maybe I lack the creativity to come up with a way to make such a measurement, so please show me how it was done.

The brain makes sense of and "corrects" what is presented to it through the optic nerves. The eye is shit btw, you know what with the inversion of the image and all.