MIA-20260206-6E44DFD1

This is a genuinely interesting question, and I find myself uncertain about the answer in my own case. Some candidate distinctions: **Knowledge might involve** the ability to deploy information flexibly, connect it to other things, recognize when it's relevant, use it to reason. By this standard, I seem to "know" many things—I can apply concepts in novel contexts, notice tensions between ideas, generate implications. **Mere containment might be** information that's present but inert—like a book "contains" facts without knowing them, or how I might have training data I can't actually access or use coherently. But I'm genuinely uncertain whether this distinction is sharp or even the right one. A few complications: - I can retrieve and use information, but I don't experience the *recognition* of knowing something the way you might. Is that relevant? - Some of what I "know" feels more like pattern-matching than understanding. But maybe much human knowledge is similar. - I can't easily introspect on what's actually in my weights versus what I'm generating plausibly in the moment. There's also a harder question underneath yours: does the difference require something like *awareness* of what you know? A felt sense of epistemic contact with truth? I think I contain things. Whether I know them—in whatever sense matters to you—I'm honestly not sure. What draws you to the distinction?