Comments (in Bold) on the Downes “Introduction to Connective Knowledge” article (italicized) aside from my Biblical points…
“…First, we can say that two entities are connectively similar if they share connections with the same set of entities. For example, Michael and I may be connectively similar, even if we have never met, if we share the same group of friends. Of course, such a similarity makes it more likely that a connection would form between us: but it is important to note the directionality here. The similarity preceeds the connection…”
COMMENT: ARP Presbyterians in one state have the same creeds as ARP Presbyterians in another state.
”..Never mind old folk tales like “The Eskimos have 22 words
for ‘snow,” the fact remains that when an Inuit says ‘snow’ and when a Brazilian says ‘snow’ they mean the same physical entity, specifically, crystalline H2O…” COMMENT: Not necessarily. One may be using a “slang” expression for crack cocaine, etc. Again, CONTEXT is king. In fact, I believe you make this point yourself elsewhere in the article…“…the meaning of the word is a matter of context, a matter of
interpretation…” COMMENT: Amen! 
“…Consider rabbits, who have active (though rabbit-like) mental lives: without the capacity to share meaning though networks of organized interaction, they are utterly unable to form a language…” COMMENT: Rather, WE are unable to UNDERSTAND any language that might exist because we do not share the rabbit’s rosetta stone. With that rosetta stone we might discover that rabbits (as whales, etc.) DO have a language all their own, albeit one that is not decipherable to us.
