We would like to thank all the commentators who responded to our target review paper for their thoughtprovoking ideas and for their initially positive characterization of our theorizing. Our position provoked a broad range of reactions, from enthusiastic support to some kind of opposition . Regardless of the type of the response, one common factor appears to be the plausibility of a presented attempt to apply insights from physics, biology (neuroscience), and phenomenology of mind to form a unified theoretical framework of Operational Architectonics of brain-mind functioning.
Indeed the most unresolved theoretical issue of greatest human significance about which scientists might hope to gain some clarity of understanding is consciousness (the entity that none can easily define, but all know exists [7]), its neural constitutes, and its place and role in physical world. The focus of the target review essay was to discuss how space and time dimensions are implemented in the physical world, in the brain, and in the mind through hierarchy of space-time patterns. The main hypothesis was that via the brain operational space-time the mind subjective spacetime is connected to otherwise distant physical space-time reality. It seems to us that all commentators but Walter Freeman [4] failed to grasp this paradigmatic nature of the target review paper and instead concentrated on either their own paradigmatic assumptions (Gerhard Werner [5] and Wolfgang Tschacher [6]) or on some important but private