Let's consider first, means of recognition used by the ants, means often evoked by the sociologists.
We know for example, that when several roads are leading to a source of food, very quickly, the ants privilege one of these ways,
the privileged way is then, the one that is marked by biggest number of olfactive molecules secreted by these insects. According to current speeches of scientists this fact would result from powers devolved by genes, and these olfactive molecules would be necessary to the "information competitiveness".

We must be rigorous. 
If there is an "information competitiveness" this fact presupposes of sense's vectors, and therefore, implication of a creative entity to recognize and to judge characteristics of this vectors.
Indeed, an olfactive molecule cannot be efficient (active) without characteristics's interpretation of the electromagnetic waves, vectors of the sense, associated to particles and to atoms that compose this molecule.

More precisely, the ants, due to their only biophysical state, are unable to recognize a road (and their "sisters") ; it's necessary that a same creative entity, master of the "sense", singularized in each of them, judges the frequencies and amplitudes of the electromagnetic waves associated to olfactive molecules,
and it, using an universal system of references (an universal system of values).

As for bees, they can mean and transmit "situation" of food zones with dances.
So, if the zones are near hive, dances are frantic, whereas angle between the dance's axis and the vertical, depends on orientations " hive - sun" and "zone of food - sun".
Consequently, to them only, these facts give evidence :
- "realism"of a language that enables from transmitting the behaviors's interpretation,
- "existence" of a beyond the reality : the abstraction domain of the insects, ipso facto, of all beings.

Man, naturally, uses to express himself means according to his potentialities that can be actualized (materialized to become realities) only with education and taking lived experiences into consideration.
Evolution of his language since childhood until adulthood, is significant in this respect :
newborn child shows his presence by shouts and simple gestures,
child employs words and small sentences,
teenager, having "digested" all the complexities of his language, is using more elaborated sentences, ...,
scholar has subtle and esoteric speeches.

Another essential precision, these divers languages necessitate the biophysical activities of some organs (hands, throat ..., brain), however, this fact does not mean that an organ, particularly brain, is an operator who recognize, judge, …, and decide.

With man, we also know that these languages concern cerebral areas very specialized, areas which are in interaction (Broca's and Wernicke's areas, ..., areas that enable treatment of numbers, sounds, forms, movements, ...),
and are necessitating ceaseless reorganizations of synaptical connections in order to associate, mix, "mature", ..., the mental creations as the virtual images, concepts, ideas ... and anticipations which are in abstraction's domain.

Nevertheless, a theory about the cognition which is founded only on biological facts, never will answer to the inevitable problematic rarely, even, never evoked :
what is creative entity who means with words, ..., information, … ?

Another remarkable fact, although we are able to mean in a conscious way, process which enable the sense (of the letters, words, sentences, ...) escapes us.
For example, physicists develops extremely esoteric theories without knowing anything about primordial means which enable them to establish correlations between reality and their virtual (abstract) representations of the phenomena.

There are therefore of internal comprehensions which do not emerge from consciousness state and the conscious understanding of the sense does not result from only use of rules and practices.
Concerning these problems, John Searle (a philosopher of the language) interrogated himself for a long time without bringing a credible answer; according to him (and for the majority of the current philosophers) :
"There are blind neuropsychological processes and consciousness, but nothing else.".

Thus, don't be surprised by the vague expressions, even hazy, that are "blooming", as :
"understanding, that's something as transparency of the rules ",
"... as fruit of an unconscious guiding ",
"we understand a physical theory when a compatible interpretation with its mathematical structure enables from considering this structure as a means …".

Now, and we must repeat,
there is not transmission and memorization of the "sense" without interpretation of the characteristics of the electromagnetic waves there which are its primordial vectors,
an innate interpretation, or an innate and conscious interpretation made by using of universal value’s references.
Who interprets ?
The consciousness ?
Sure, no.
                                                                                                           *