"George Hammond" <ghammond at mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B00D9EE.9B6CC68A at mediaone.net...
> maxwell wrote:
> snip
>> > Well, yes, I did as much. I'll note that your earlier
> > mention of the probable phylogenic constraints,
> > that resulted in decussations, consistent with current
> > ontogenic molecular findings, are another
> > pleasant spot of actual science amidst the folderol.
> > ...Which apparently evoked no further interest, alas.
>> [Hammond]
> Is it plausible that decussation originated in
> the fact that a lens "reverses" it's image, and the
> easiest way to correct this unwanted optical circumstance
> would be to simply "reverse" the wiring somewhere else
> in the system. To wit: do animals without eye lenses normally
> exhibit a major decussation in the CNS, or is this
> reserved only for animals with lenses?
Maybe it sounds plausible, but unfortunately there is no
validity to it. Nothing in the nervous "cares" whether the
image is inverted or reversed or upside down or whatever.
The mapping of the visual field to the cortex is highly
distorted over a highly folded surface. Still we see "up"
and "down". Besides, the auditory system and the
somatosensory systems, not to mention the motor
systems, are also decussated.