Since you referenced some of my arguments I would like to reply to those responses:
>>>What I am saying points right into something Harv said:"If we are both 'onto something' (i.e., us and whatever other history of life we discuss), then I believe we can logically map our theories and laws into their theories and laws. They will correspond." I have two problems with what Harv says. First, their concepts (and the concept relations) may not map exactly into ours so our senses may not deliver exactly what was sent. Second, his position presumes that his personal collection of concepts is the only viable solution to the problem.>>Another aspect of this picture is that Harv could indeed be talking to someone with a completely different concept construct and not even know it because he is unaware of the possibility of the undefined translation which I say has to be included in any valid analysis of the problem. This situation might well explain some of the great difficulties rational people seem to have communicating.>>With regard to my arguments with Yannari, he will grab at any straw to avoid thinking the symmetries are required by the existence of that undefined translation. Please read my post:>Finally, with regard to how Harv feels the problem should be attacked, I only quote him. Harv "It's a trial and error process." And he wants to keep it that way! It is what I call the "by guess and by golly" approach!