If you lose sight in one eye it is 2d the rest of your life.  Your eyes are human based which allows you to perceive a 3d world, but the universe exists in a larger state than we can perceive. But to answer your question, yes human sight is 2D.

I think the main problem with this generation isn't so much going to be the hardware. In fact, the hardware is quite excellent and balanced more so than previous generations. No weird CPU bottleneck, no shitty mechanical hard drive to slow things down, the GPU is quite capable and has plenty of Vram.

The problem this gen is what it's targeting which is 4k. In order to achieve 4k resolution, even the best of the best has a hard time with Native in every game. So when you take a 36 and 52 CU parts which imo are better suited for 1440p and have them run games at 4k, it essentially takes away a ton of resources that would otherwise go into visual enhancements and instead puts them towards resolution. If instead, the GPUs were targeting 1440p with a solution similar to DLSS to have them upscale to 4k, I think there would be a lot more visual differences that are would be easily distinguishable. The next gen games look good but you look at Killzone shadow fall or Infamous second son vs their ps3 counterparts... Now that is when I took out my lube.

The good news of course is, because of the fap worthy CPU and SSDs, there's gonna be some amazing games in the future with more ambitious game design than ever before imo. Just gotta wait until the cross gen portion comes to an end.

Heh, well yes you are right, the screen is always 2D except for the 3DS or VR systems.  This may be what is throwing some people when I say "1D" is that they don't realize that the screen is 2D even on a game like Mario 64.  The screen isn't the reason why we call a game 2D or 3D.  The screen is always 2D.  The shapes in Mario 64 are 3D and that is why it's called a 3D game.  It also uses an analogue stick for 3D controls.

But if you look at both graphic capabilities and the controls, gaming started as 1D.  Pong was a 1D game.  It was two sticks hitting a dot.  Those are all 1D shapes.  The controller is a dial that just goes up and down.  Those are 1D controls.  The Atari 2600 is kind of 1D+ in the same sense that SNES is 2D+ with the parallax scrolling or games like Star Fox.  SNES games have some 3D elements, but they are still mostly 2D.  Atari 2600 has some 2D elements, but the graphics are mostly sticks and dots and there are plenty of games where you can only move in one dimension (Space Invaders, Breakout, etc...).  Atari 2600 is still mostly 1D. 

Gaming didn't really become fully 2D until the NES, and again that is just 1 of 4 elements I originally pointed out.  The jump from Atari 2600 to NES was huge for several reasons.

These are some hot takes on what is 1 dimensional... Wish I could get a geometrician (if that's the word) in here.

In one dimension, only the x-axis would exist.

I've never seen a game like that. Closest I've seen is a game where you could only move in one direction like Pong, but the ball, which is indirectly under your control half the time, moves in two dimensions. And the paddles and the balls are definitely two dimensions since they have measurable length and width. 

That's my take... like I said, if a geometry expert comes in, he can correct me.

Definitely not the largest leap.

In terms of Ram... There was only a 2x capacity increase at best... And a 20% decrease at worst. (Xbox Series X @ 12GB vs Series S @ 10GB.)

The CPU saw the largest gains with 8-10x especially when leveraging AVX and SIMD.

GPU is only relatively marginal with a 2-3x increase over the enhanced consoles, but there is a slew of new technologies that are coming with it like Ray Tracing cores.

You are only making my point.

In one dimension you wouldn't move.  You would only exist in a single point.  No up, no down, no left, no right,.  Invisible, even stared at dead on.

You missed my entire point of my post, and i am not surprised coming from you.