Not clear to me what you mean. I can agree that knowledge ultimately is grounded in sense experience ("the body"). Thus, the knowledge of "Horse" (or "Horsenes

Not clear to me what you mean. I can agree that knowledge ultimately is grounded in sense experience ("the body"). Thus, the knowledge of "Horse" (or "Horseness") must ultimately be traced to sense experience involving particular horses. I can agree that the "bits" in a computer (strictly speaking, not bits but physical states under that interpretation) are only meaningful by convention and not intrinsically. Thus, we say in one context that states labeled 11100 represent the integer 28 and a sequence of five Boolean values in another context, depending on the conventions of each context. I can agree that conventional meanings are often cultural like commonly understood meanings of the symbolic which, again, lack that particular meaning intrinsically. E.g., both nodding and the utterance "yes" are generally meant to express agreement (except in countries like Bulgaria). However, I do not understand what is being said when invoking embodiment and culture in this context, specifically.