iamevil

I am not so sure about that. When you imagine a "particle", what do you see? Do you see a collection of balls?

Isn't the only issue here that we have here one set of spaces (brains) with that structural understanding (link/edge), and another set without that structural understanding?

It seems that the brains that possess the link are busy implementing it's isomorphic structure in technology, while the brains that do not possess the link are contributing nothing as they are still in a more "primitive" state? (Primitive meaning that they lack the linkage to see that the terms are really structurally isomorphic on the grand scale of things)

It would be interesting to know what input those brains that do not possess the link require to start possessing it.

Can there exist brains that will never make the link?

What is this thing we call "meaning"? Can it be a point in a vast and complex "pattern space" and the meaning of that point is the structure of all the "paths" that map that point to other points in this same pattern space?

Our act of arbitrary categorization of patterns into "syntax" and "semantics" just seems to obscure that fact that they are just two arbitrary encodings of patterns.

How can we know that one pattern is equal to another pattern in a different encoding? Don't we agree on these mappings with other pattern spaces (read humans)? As we communicate, so do our pattern spaces start interacting, and all we can hope for is a convergence on the mappings sans encoding.