From what hath been premised it is a manifest consequence that a man born blind, being made to see, would, at first, have no idea of distance by sight; the sun and stars, the remotest objects as well as the nearer, would all seem to be in his eye, or rather in his mind. The objects intromitted by sight would seem to him (as in truth they are) no other than a new set of thoughts or sensations, each whereof is as near to him as the perceptions of pain or pleasure, or the most inward passions of his soul. For our judging objects provided by sight to be at any distance, or without the mind, is (VID. sect. 28) entirely the effect of experience, which one in those circumstances could not yet have attained to.
An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision Section 41 - George Berkeley
Berkeley understates the case. Experience, and he makes clear he means tactile experience, does more than connect the tactile world and the sight world. In nearly all cases for nearly all people, the learned tactile experience completely supplants our fundamental experience of vision.
…the sun and stars, the remotest objects as well as the nearer, would all seem to be in his eye…
Who retains this pre-tactile-informed perception?
Oliver Sachs has written about individuals who experience crossed senses. I suggest that some evolutionary or cultural adaptation has crossed or rewired our original experience of visual perception with our tactile experience, to the great loss of the first.
Consider what we lose in this. A newborn raises its hand into the field of vision between itself and its mother. Nothing in its visual field provides any information that it remains separate from its mother or from anything else it can see. This seems the origination of transpersonal experience and would also seem to equate with Jill Taylor's experience of nirvana or being at “...one with all that is" So, something has rewired and displaced our immediate ecstatic experience of the world.