A question that I have for both of you is to ask for your briefest statement of epistemology. As a pragmatist the answer to these questions is apparent, for example, the meaning of a concept is unrelated to its name (though the name may indeed provide hints), it is the behavior to which it refers in the world. Assuming that this can be indicated in a satisfactory way independent of term, then the term is given a meaning.
Similarly, you both use the term "semantics" in a way that is inadequate. For me, in line with Carnap, the term relates to the set of rules that allow a language to be transformed.
I recently reviewed Philip's thesis and found it to be more of the same. Nicely written but I have no idea, for example, what use or relevance the section on "consciousness" has when it (whatever you mean by the term) plays no role what-so-ever in the outcomes.
Steven