In my response I revisit the question whether internalization should be conceived as representation or as instantiation. Shepard's ingenuity lies partly in allowing both interpretations. The down side of this facile generality of internalization is its immunity to falsification. I describe evidence from 3-D apparent motion studies that speak against geodesic paths in cases of underspecified percepts. I further reflect on the applicability of internalization to normal, well-specified perception, on the superiority of Gestalt principles, as well as on the evolutionary and developmental implications of the concept. The commentaries to the target article reveal an astonishing lack of agreement. This not only indicates that a satisfactory unifying theory explaining perception in the face of poorly specified stimuli does not exist. It also suggests that for the time being we have to be pluralistic and should treat internalization as a source of inspiration rather than as an irrefutable theory.