Comment by MITSardine

The representation might not need to explicitly encode "meaning", if it does so implicitly by preserving essential properties of how things relate to each other.

For instance, a CAD object has no notion of what an airplane wing or car wheel are, but it can represent those in a way that how a wing relates to a fuselage is captured in numerical simulations. This is because it doesn't mangle the geometry the user wanted to represent ("what it means", in a geometric sense), although it does make it differ in certain ways that are "meaningless" (e.g. spurious small features, errors under tolerances), much like this representation might do with words.

Back to words, how do you define meaning anyways? I believe I was taught what words "mean" by having objects pointed to as a word was repeated: "cat", says the the parent as they point to a cat, "bird", as they point to a bird. Isn't this also equality/correspondence by relative frequency?