/what/ - ...

I do not wish to extend this beyond a humble assault upon the signifier, specifically notions of an immutable signification or an instance of signification which may have its meaning set exhaustively determined. Signifiers hold no continuous physical existence - ie, instances of a commonly recognized signifier hold no material equivalence amidst each other. It necessarily follows then that none of these instances can be treated as an inherent signification of anything; this post is a mere arrangement of pixels and only holds comprehensible textual meaning if you choose to interpret it with the cultural idiosyncrasies you've developed. From this it should be clear that no perceived instance of signifier holds an immutable, singular connection to signified entity. The word "tree", specifically in this instance is not inherently a signifier nor does it necessarily point to any signified concept. Further issues complicating this originally simplistic semiotic concept include the individual's relation to the signified, the justifiable non-existence of the signified and the value of a sign also being contingent upon a time dimension - this is why you were quietly directed to post-structuralism. What you seem to be advocating here is total unconsciousness of systemic, totally compromising epistemic flaws.

Even within the conventional bounds of a fully developed language a futile ambiguity is clear to accompany any analytical approach. Extending an attempt at absolute meaning-analysis beyond the comforts of a conscious semiotic system is simply ridiculous. What information you are able to cognitively process is only comprehensive through the perspective of whichever conceptual framework you are using to interpret it. A useful fiction, not the "true", exclusively valid representation of surrounding material phenomena.