This particular figure has been removed from the new draft. Nevertheless, to address the broader objection, the reviewer is criticizing the details of this model when no details have been presented. It is not at all clear whether the model as described would produce the exact results suggested in these figures, but that is not the point. For the details of the model (when they are eventually specified) can be specifically tuned to match the observed percept, when it is agreed, or determined psychophysically, exactly how it appears. At this point I am merely suggesting that the notion of a full spatial reification in a multistable dynamic model offers a promise to address certain problematic phenomena in perception that have not yielded to a more conventional approach. Among these problems are those of amodal perception, closure, and depth segregation in figures like the Ehrenstein illusion. In this model, independent of the specifics, these three phenomena are intimately interrelated, as indeed they appear to be in perception, and these problems are solved in this model in an explicit spatial manner rather than in the abstracted analytical manner more commonly attempted. The solution in this model therefore is by definition isomorphic to the percept, so if the reviewer sees a percept differently, he can argue for different specifics of the model when the time comes for those specific interactions to be defined. It may seem trivially obvious to state that the model is by definition isomorphic to the percept; however it should be noted that other models of such phenomena have not even attempted to be fully isomorphic, since this is generally not seen as an essential property of a neural model of perception. It is that general assumption that is being challenged by this general modeling approach. This argument is expressed more clearly in the new draft.