Regarding your first point, I agree that it doesn't constitute a justification for "this is the best way" so much as justification for "this is worth trying".

Regarding your first point, I agree that it doesn't constitute a justification for "this is the best way" so much as justification for "this is worth trying". When you say > It proves little since only the first visual layer (there are 6 visual cortex layers) does convolution-esque things. I admit I'm not clear on the roles of the various layers of visual cortex. But I should note that there are several convolution-like steps which in an artificial network would be implemented with separate layers: center-surround detection (happens to occur before V1, but that's not really a problem for what I'm saying- it's a distraction that I skipped past for concision's sake) feeds into the convolution-like operations of oriented-edge detection, corner detection, etc. It's not like our visual system in toto just does one convolution-like step. My second point must have been expressed poorly, because I have apparently completely failed to convey its meaning. It is meant to justify the particular choice of ordering convolutions before fully-connected layers. If you have already chosen to include both types, my point is that it makes sense to put those convolutions before the fully-connected layers.