I understand you are making a pun.
I have read somewhere in the past that there are persons who are blind from birth that appear to have perfectly functional eyes and connections between the eyes and the visual cortex. The problem for them is that the visual cortex is not “on” to receive the nerve impulses and begin the visualization process.
The processing of information is definitely a “learned” thing. All you have to do is watch a new born infant figure out depth perception to see the inexperienced operator trying to figure out how to operate the various features of its body and interpret the sensory inputs being received. In fact, one of the early markers of infant brain development is how well they are able to reach out and accurately touch or grasp objects.
As for the article, there is no link to an academic article to see them discuss their work in depth.
The Quanta article gives no indication that they are considering the possibility that the visual picture is basically the biological version of a scan: an image methodically built one element (pixel) at a time with a specific refresh rate.
We already know the human visual system refresh rate is 32 frames per second (threshold rate for motion picture projection). If each location (element) in the visual cortex was being addressed in sequence, the limited number of nerves coming from the eye might be enough to load that element with the needed information to set its values before moving on to the next element. Sweep rate would be a function of the number of rows of rods and cones in the retina to be read in within the frame rate of 1/32th of a second.
The feedback mentioned in the article might contain a switching signal sent from the visual cortex to the retinas moving from one data input (rod or cone) point to the next. Even the notion of the visual cortex being a “mind within the mind” makes sense if you see it as an autonomous yet processing-intense, continuously-running function that the higher level cognitive areas of the brain do not want to be distracted by. (”Ralph, I’m sure how you did what you did is really neat, but I’m not interested in the details; just give me the data!”)
Heck, images in dreams might be nothing more than a fidgety, under occupied visual cortex rummaging through bits and pieces of stored visual data for something to process (helped along with some direction from what?... the subconscious?).
And hallucinations... “Mission control, we’ve got a problem.”
Conceptually, think of the old cathode ray tube (CRT) TV electron gun and yoke setup running in reverse. The picture on the screen being read to establish the settings of the yoke (where the electron gun is pointing (X,Y)) and the value settings (intensity and B/W/R/G/B) of the electron gun(s) and the data being sent down to the signal processor. Of course, CRT is very yesterday, today it’s LEDs in flat panels. Very thin. Compact. And flexible color screens are the newest innovation. However, image production is still the same: one pixel at a time, XY intensity BW RGB settings for each pixel, row upon row, all driven by the refresh rate which is now a lot more than the 32 frames per second minimum.
Imagine what many hundreds of millions of years of biological visual development in multiple, very competitive environments could produce.
Personally, my favorite eyes are those on the mantis shrimp. Nothing says “I’m a wild and crazy guy (or gal)!” like they do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGuZifKr0h4
I actually wasn't making a pun, but thanks for the insight (now that was a pun).