In living "cameras" discussed above the post-processing is performed in the main "CPU".
Although there is a region of that CPU dedicated to it, albeit vaguely defined, so you might argue that is "kind of" like a separate unit

Exactly my point. Neither will stop evolving. And given the head start of one and intrinsic technical difficulties with the other, the chance of catching up is absolutely zero.

Or think of it this way. A dedicated device optimized to do one task well can never be overtaken by a universal device that has to make compromises to do multiple tasks well enough.

I agree on YHWH being powerful and almighty, though I would very much also call him genius. It can only take both to create ALL there is (a powerful and genius being - God) :-D

Though this very OT and then again maybe not ;-)

pseudo science eh?
Casual dismissal without inquiry?

the laws of physics and the laws of visible light haven't altered any since socrates or before ...if memory serves...
the only thing that has altered is our refinement in understanding (except in some it appears who casually dismiss) of exact numbers.

All visible colour is calculated thus .
the order is in the 10 to the 14th power Hz oscillations per second for "seen" colour.
That means...
Ergo ..
the electrons in the human eye must resonate at a harmonic frequency with which to perceive the colour ....that the colour vibrates at.
Ergo ...
Your eye cannot perceive what it cannot "allow" for.
Ergo psuedo science my *****.

That rectangle is not yellow

Sorry, endso, but Wiki is right. It does sound like pseudoscience.

[tl;dr]
Molecules do not "vibrate" to perceive light. Light is a wave, that much is true. But we do not perceive each individual crest and trough of that wave (the same is the case with sound, BTW, and the frequencies involved there are a trillion times lower). Our light perception is based on the fact that light is a particle (called "photon") as well as a wave, and that the particle hitting an electron delivers a small jolt (called "quantum") of energy to that electron which, in certain materials, can be harvested as an electric impulse. Light sensors in digital cameras are based on exactly the same principle, only using different materials.

Even the electrons do not "vibrate" in rhythm with the frequency of the incoming light. They merely receive a quantum of energy proportional to the frequency. You might say that they "vibrate" in rhythm with the number of incoming photons: the more photons per second the more electric impulses are generated, which we perceive as the light intensity. But even then we do not perceive each individual impulse but their average gathered from a huge number of electrons involved.

Which brings us neatly back to the phone cameras and the megapixel war. More pixels per square mm means smaller pixels. Smaller pixels means fewer electrons to receive the photons. Fewer electrons means less chance of a rare photon hitting one (= lower sensitivity to low light) as well as less chance of any free electrons left if the photons come in a large torrent (= limit on the maximum light intensity resulting in overexposed or "burnt out" areas).

To preempt Dave's next question, no, there is no way around it. These are physical limits that no science fiction can overcome. Ever. You can have either more megapixels or more dynamic range (the range between the darkest and lightest area of the image). Choose one.

Come to think of it, I just talked myself into supporting multiple light sensors, one for each portion of the dynamic range. In the basic configuration you could have two: a primary with a lot of small pixels for the middle of the dynamic range and a secondary with fewer, larger, more sensitive pixels for the extremes. The post-processing could find any dark or over-exposed pixels in the primary and replace them with pixels from the secondary. I assume this is what manufacturers refer to as "the other sensor is for low light images" - a rare exception when marketing is actually (almost) right. It is a trick since the extremes have a lower resolution but most people won't notice anyway.
[/tl;dr]

Sight is great and unrivaled at what it does. But it does not make pictures, nor does it efficiently collect data. There is no such thing as a biological equivalent of a camera, nor is there much relevance into wondering how well the eye without the brain would perform at catching visual data.

What we see is the result of complex processes and cognitive biases that trick us into believing we see sharpness everywhere, or something that is not there, or something that has not happened yet, or something that lasts a different duration than what we perceive, and the brain even fabricates data where it seems it would be relevant. The result is brilliant and admittedly astonishing, we feel that we can see pictures, motion, even perspectives at the best possible standard, we can focus and move the field amazingly fast, all from something that is full of flaws and costly trade-offs, and probably mushier than a glass of water. Fortunately the brain adds in its own flaws to compensate for them and make us believe they either don't exist, or are perks. However, it is mostly a fabricated illusion that happens to be perfectly decent and look legit based on what the eyes could collect and how persuasive the brain can be. Whatever objective signal is collected at the beginning is far more heavily processed when we actually "see" it than a raw image translated into a lossy format.

The result is great, but I don't believe it would be right to consider the eye alone an objective sensor to collect visual information, let alone a standard. And putting a CPU next to a digital sensor won't help forging extra data and convincing the user that the data is real when it is not. By contrast, the magic thing with the brain is what it does is never debated by the owner of the said brain; that's a big difference.

Well if both of you wish to ride on conjecture
without an ounce of actual physical science involved.
then here is mine,

you both have a skewed understanding of the physics of colour and how the human eye interacts with them.
Your assessment is flaky as hell and doesn't come close in the slightest with the actual science concerning the visible light spectrum , nor the human body and how it works and its interaction with that spectrum.
Go back to primary school.

Are you including me in "both"? I was replying to other posts.

And I don't work on neurosciences or sight and therefore I won't want to push further than what I understand or know, but I am a biologist working on evolution and I have some basic knowledge on how the thing works.

gads no K.
it was in ref. to pichlo
and wiki statements ...my statement was ...

This Vsauce video demonstrates it beautifully.

I don't even know whats going on ITT anymore.