Now this is the one issue I was really hoping would not be raised. Not because I have no answer to it, but because the answer I have will sound so incredible to the reviewers as to completely quench all possibility of this paper ever being published! If the reviewers were screaming before, just wait to see how they will howl when they hear the answer to this one! But this issue goes way beyond the intended scope of the present paper, which began as a spatial model to account for the spatial properties of perception. Do I really have to address all of the most profound issues of consciousness just to propose that spatial perception involves a spatial representation in the brain?

But lest I be accused of being "not responsive to substantive referees' points," I have provided a whole new section in the latest revision to discuss the ultimate nature of consciousness, just to show that I am not lacking for an answer to this criticism, although I maintain that this issue leads the paper far astray from the original message intended by the author, and is likely to be a principal bone of contention in the open peer portion of the review (if we ever get that far!) and yet this issue is neither the central focus, nor is it at all necessary to support the contention that spatial perception involves a spatial representation.