I suppose I should be happy that he is not rejecting it! But his criticisms are all of a stylistic nature - nothing to do with the substance of the theory. In particular, the reviewer is confused by the discussion of the Gestalt properties of perception, and the need for a new paradigm of neurocomputation to address them. It is not surprising that he is confused, as this aspect of perceptual processing is so little discussed in the contemporary literature. But that is all the more reason why this argument needs to be heard. I stand by the first 11 pages of the paper, and maintain that it is every bit as significant and interesting as the rest of the paper! I like it the way it is, and I see no need to revise at all.

But of course who am I to have an opinion on these matters? The reviewer is God! His Word is final. Either I change it as he demands, or I can forget about publication!

Ok, one more round! Here we go again! (Sigh!)