Is it not perhaps a bit strong for the reviewer to proclaim that "it is simply untrue that the two edges appear phenomenally very different"? Surely the reviewer has access only to his own personal percepts, in which case it might be more reasonable for him to state that he sees the stimulus differently than I do. I will admit that when one focuses intently on the two circles in Figure 1 (A) the portion within the circles can be seen as identical. The circles however were only included in the figure to help the reader locate the edges in question. I was hoping the reader could discount the presence of the circles while making the judgement, as in Figure 1 (B). Does the reviewer not now preattentively perceive one edge as a reflectance edge, and the other as a form edge? Consider by comparison Figure 1 (C), where the same geometrical surfaces have been reshuffled in order to break the spatial gestalt, which I now perceive as a random arrangement of two-dimensional diamond-shaped tiles. If the reviewer can locate the edges in Figure 1 (C) corresponding to the circled edges in Figure 1 (A), will he not admit that they look phenomenally very different from those same edges in Figure 1 (B), even though they are locally identical? If the reviewer still fails to see a difference between the edges in Figure 1 (B) and (C), then our perceptual disagreement is more fundamental, and is discussed in response to Point 7: below.