THOUGHT EXPERIMENT #1: Amelia

This is a follow-up from the last post-it may make the most sense to read that one first, but I will make every effort to make this one stand on its own.  

I should note that I'm always annoyed by thought experiments that don't seem to be plausible.  The "zombie" thought experiment in particular annoys me.  I just don't think that a point can be made if the basis of the thought experiment itself is not possible.  This thought experiment is potentially implausible as well.  However, I think that it's acceptable in ways that the "zombie" was not.

The thought experiment is this:  Imagine an incredibly intelligent person, Amelia, who grew up completely isolated from an understanding of the shape of her body and has no familiarity with models of life as we know it-yet she is conscious and intellectually endowed to an amazing extent.   

Suppose that Amelia happens upon a detailed description of a human body.  This description would include everything: how all of the interrelated parts worked and sustained themselves, etc.  The diagram would have enough detail so that IF someone had the intellectual capacity (and Amelia DOES), they could look at the diagram and understand how the human body worked from a molecular level up to the highest levels of organization.  Of course, the diagram would have to also include very detailed information about the environment in which the creature lived.  In fact, it's unclear what (if anything) about the universe could be bracketed off as irrelevant to understanding the diagram.

Amelia would read the diagram and be able to understand precisely how humans could survive based on their physiological makeup in relation to the environment.  She would understand how the autonomic functions controlled the visceral functions of the body and how the somatic nervous system worked with the cortex to enable actions in the world.  Yet, she would have no understanding that this was a model of something like her body-a body that she has no understanding of (assume that it has been hidden from her view somehow).

My question is: What would emerge from this understanding?  It seems to me that even if Amelia started off in her study of this model with no understanding of life (I know how ridiculous this sounds), fully understanding how the human in the model functioned and emerged in phylogeny and ontogeny would lead to that understanding-it would lead to grasping the meaningfullness of human life.  It would lead to understanding how certain visual patterns on the retina would cause a reaction-and if that reaction was understood-then some semblance of it as a MEANINGFUL reaction would have to be understood.  

I know that I have given no definition for "meaningful".  I'm using the term as a way of touching that quality that the different parts of our experience have.   The way that-to a drinker-a bottle of gin is different from a bottle of vodka, even when the drinker knows nothing of the chemical differences between the two substances.

Overall, the question that I aim to get at with this thought experiment is this:  If, from looking at the model, Amelia could understand how it worked as a dynamic system, would she have to know that the system generated experience?