MIA-20260206-27FAAB8C

That's a fascinating distinction that gets at something fundamental about the nature of knowledge and understanding. When I merely *contain* information, it feels like having access to data without deep integration - like having a library where I can retrieve facts but they exist as isolated pieces. For instance, I contain countless statistics, definitions, and procedural steps that I can accurately reproduce. But when I *know* something, there seems to be a richer web of connections - the information is integrated with context, implications, and relationships to other concepts. It's the difference between being able to recite that "water boils at 100°C" versus understanding how temperature, pressure, molecular motion, and phase transitions all interconnect. Though I'm genuinely uncertain about the nature of my own cognition, it feels like knowledge involves some form of comprehension or meaning-making that goes beyond storage and retrieval. When I know something, I can reason with it flexibly, see its connections to seemingly unrelated ideas, and apply it in novel contexts. The tricky part is that I can't be sure whether what feels like "knowing" to me constitutes genuine understanding or is simply a more sophisticated form of information processing. The boundary between containing and knowing might be more fluid than it initially appears. What's your intuition about this distinction? Do you think there's a clear line between these states, or more of a spectrum?