[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosensitive_epilepsy
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennō_Senshi_Porygon
[2]https://www.epilepsysociety.org.uk/photosensitive-epilepsy
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosensitive_epilepsy
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennō_Senshi_Porygon
[2]https://www.epilepsysociety.org.uk/photosensitive-epilepsy
Beyond the fact that unexpected inputs produce unwanted outputs in both cases, I'm not sure I see the connection.
In the DNN case, the network should be able to end up in both states. However, the boundary is fairly sharp and small changes in the input not only push it over the boundary, but make give it high confidence that the new state is the correct one.
The brain, however, shouldn't ever end up in an epileptic state; there are feedback mechanisms that decorrelate neural activity and keep excitation in a certain range. These mechanisms are weakened or defective in epilepsy, which allows very potent stimuli to drive neural activity and kick off positive feedback loops.
The odds that there are adversarial perturbations that reliably push the system into an unstable state between two or more output states is probably quite high. It just hasnt hit the threshold at which it becomes interesting for postdocs to look for yet.