The complete paper as originally submitted.
With section on "Eigenfunctions of Perceptual Processing" expurgated by Reviewer #2. But reviewer 2 did request that the computation be specified mathematically, which I admit was an improvement, so this is the version that I endorse.
With still more sections expurgated by Reviewer #2, eliminating
I used to wonder why papers in peer reviewed journals were always so dry and boring and pedantic, focusing on minute details instead of larger issues. Now I know why. Reviewer #2 complains: "I struggled to follow precisely what problem was to be solved. My attention wandered frequently as I tried to extract the central issues and ideas from the dense camouflage of abstract and argumentative text." These guys simply don't understand the larger issues of perception, which I consider to be the most interesting aspect of the problem.