Dear Dr. Moschovalkis,
I got the second review of the paper above with the suggestions for revision, but the suggestions are not reasonable. The central objection of the reviewer is based on his refusal to accept the fact that the low-level connectivity in the brain is stochastic (varies randomly between individuals), a fact that is known to any neurobiologist. revising the paper the way the reviewer suggests means removing its central point. In the words of the second reviewer: "The novelty and persuasive force of the article is the focusing on this stochastic connectivity."
To settle this point, I suggest that you let a few neurobiologists to review only those claims that the reviewer objects to. To that end, I attach a few copies of this part (The beginning of section 4, essentially p.9 of the paper, although the reviwer states that he does not object to the last paragraph). This will show that my claim (that it is a well-established knowledge) is correct.
For completeness, I also attach a detailed response to the reviewer comments (my responses indented and in italics), but the question of stochastic connectivity is the only real issue. I should also point out that this reviewer's comments, both here and in the first review, make it clear that he made up his mind to block the publication of this paper, whether it is right or wrong. Therefore, it would be better to let somebody else to review his comments and response.