Apologies for the poor wording of the question, I'm sure I'm gravely misunderstanding something here but not sure exactly what.
Suppose we have some point light source. We can see it because the rays that enter the eye will be focused by the cornea and lens onto the retina to form an image. Crucially, if we ray trace the rays backwards, they intersect at the object, which makes sense because this is where the light comes from.
If we now introduce a converging lens such that the point source is located at some arbitrary position along its optical axis, an image of the source will be formed also along the optical axis. If the object is beyond the focal point, the image will form on the other side of the lens. I now put my eye between the image and the lens and look towards the lens. If we now ray trace the rays that enter the eye backwards as we did before, these will no longer intersect anywhere. If we ray trace 'forwards' (i.e into the eye) the rays will intersect at the image but surely this cannot be seen by the eye because it's inside it. And more importantly, the rays can't go backwards from the image into the lens so as far as the eye is concerned this image doesn't exist? So how are we able to see an image? I know an image definitely is seen because this is exactly what happens with glasses or contact lenses to correct for long-sightedness, but not sure how.
EDIT: My question hinges on a certain way of looking at compound lenses being valid which it may not be so I just want to outline it here. Essentially my dilemma relies upon being able to treat the system as the first lens (i.e. glasses/contact lenses) producing an image then when we apply a second lens (i.e. the eye) we make the OBJECT for that lens the IMAGE of the first. In this case, the image of the first lens is occurring behind the eye when we take the glasses in isolation (ignoring the presence of the eye lens for now). So if we make that the object of the eye lens, it seems to me that the rays will be leaving the eye instead of entering it, so it doesn't make sense for an image to be formed at the retina.