[From: Bruce Nevin (Mon 921026 08:24:02)]
(Rick Marken (921023.0930) ) --
in the model the reference input "commands" a particular
level of perception.
OK, I stand willingly corrected. But this somewhat "combative"
distinction is not made, and the paragraph is less than clear in other
respects too.
People who are able to understand the paper (because they have
already read PCT stuff) should see the implications just fine. Recall
that I was writing the paper for people who had already passed PCT 101.
Then the reviewers are right if they say you are not really trying to
get it published in this journal, i.e. that you are addressing a
different audience. (That's my reading of the reviewer saying to Tom
"you're determined to elicit rejection.") Nothing wrong with that if
that's the aim, but there does seem to be a bit of conflict here.
The fox, spying a bunch of grapes hanging above the path, leaps to
pull it down but falls short again and again. Finally, with a last
look up at the grapes the fox walks off, muttering "Probably sour
anyway."
An imagined perception to counter the previous imagined perception,
"mmm, how sweet and juicy those grapes will taste!"
If there really is no conflict, there will be no further efforts to
publish in other than CSG publications, and no further complaints about
reviewers and editors, right? 
(Gary Cziko 921024.0300 GMT) --
I agree with you that the "blind men" approach is a good one and ought
to be pursued further. Had Einstein taken the approach to publication
that some are advocating there might have been a small fringe group of
relativistic physicists but they would probably have had little
influence and would by now have all died off in the years following
Albert's demise. (The fact that the parallel is obtuse, in that physics
at least has a strong commitment to evidence, only strengthens the
point.)
Bruce
bn@bbn.com