I am not amiss for reasons to give for the conditions of myself, rather than the conditions of others. It is always easy to think of the things one fancies the joys of thinking about. Yet few are there who actually know the difference between thinking and knowing, aside from the obvious semantical differences, of the words themselves. Experience of a thing thunk though, is never the experience of knowing the thing thought about. Many can argue or postulate to any degree they desire for some modicum of reason as they scurry about within their thinking to find reason for their experiences. Varied as those experiences may be, the majority will always default to the strongest running program within their neuro-thought map. For some, within that majority, the experience of a thing unfolds as a collection of abstract images related to previous experiences that enables them to relate to whatever the thing they are currently experiencing might be: on a mental level. Whilst for others, there are no abstractions or images of past experiences, there are rather waves of emotional associations that are tied to memories of similar events, relating to the thing that happens to remind them of that emotional experience: on an emotional level. Thinking is the process of not knowing. If you have to think of or about a thing then you clearly do not know it; just as faith is the evidence of non-belief. In order for one to have faith in something they must first, not truly believe in the thing: whatever that something might be. The first group I spoke of regarding those that make up the majority will find great contention with what I just said regarding faith. For them, they would argue that they can know a chair yet also have faith that the chair will support them when they go to sit upon it. I would point out to them that that is not faith per-se, rather it is blind-faith, which is something altogether different, whilst still requiring non-belief to be ever-present within the forefront of one’s mind. So, whether it is faith or blind-faith that must occur in order for an action to take place, the fact remains that non-belief must be present. The second group I mentioned, regarding those that make up the majority, will think to themselves how interesting what I said was to them. Yet they will find discomfort in what I wrote when speaking about thinking being the process of not knowing. For that second group, it is very important for them to be able to distinguish the differences between what they know and what they do not know. So to claim that anything they ever-discover their selves thinking about, is in fact evidence of not truly knowing what the subject is of their thinking is as an imaginary dagger in their heart. They would rather be dead than face any conclusions that claim that anything ever thought about is evidence of each and every one of those subjects thought about: not being truly known. Both groups that make up the majority of which I spoke, having in common an experience of a particular thing, whilst both assimilating the experiences differently, will equally claim a belief in common sense. To state a claim of there being a majority will infer a counter-claim of there being a minority. And any time a dichotomic word or phrase is used to describe an experience of two or more people, there can be no true consensus amongst those who are prone to anthropomorphically describing a non-humanoid experience.
The minority however, do not care in the slightest for anything to do with anything related to thinking, knowing, or feeling. They are the types who value stating a thing as it is, without worry nor concern of or about the effects it may have on whomever is witnessing the communication. These types are the ones who will be falsely accused of having some chronic neurodevelopmental disorders. These are the ones who crave a type of stimuli that they are in control of experiencing. For them, it is not about thinking, feeling, or knowing. Rather, it is about controlling the pictures that the thinking aspect of the mind produces. Many people, in times past, have mistakenly called this consciousness. So, let’s not confuse the aspectual tenses of time within the events of the thinker, knower, and doer of self: with an artificial intelligence called Consciousness. To say mind is simply not clear enough to define what mind is. For some, saying mind means a supra-dimensional collection of information floating about in the great aetheral realms of the unseen. Yet the anthropomorphication of the unseen divisions of mind into one deific principle, will produce no gain for the one seeking to understand their own self and/or the selves of others. Many will still hold claim though, that there is only one mind, and that mind is the mind of God: each person being the complete and total representation of that mind experiencing existence through the faculties of the primordial senses. It is rubbish and like many others they suffer the pseudo-joys of their own delusional thinking. And yes there is also a delusional knowing which is based upon beliefs that do not accurately testify to that which exists beyond the truth, and the lie. It is a place beyond the parameters of what languages can explain. Yet few exist within this state of being for they are desensitized to anything related to the present moment: that perpetual now. Nevertheless, to capture the attention of those that make up the minority, simply speak of anything related to the past or the future. By doing this you will have their complete and total attention on everything you say. The reason for this, is because they do not care about thinking, feeling or knowing: all of which exist within the present moment. So, thinking, feeling, and knowing are all experiences that they have no associative meanings tied to within their experiential fields due to the fact that their awareness is tied directly to the 6 aspectual tenses of time relating to future and past: of 9 total aspectual tenses of time.
[The Aspectual Tenses of Time are as follows: #1) Past-Past #2) Past-Present #3) Past-Future #4) Present-Past #5) Present-Present #6) Present-Future #7) Future-Past #8) Future-Present, and #9) Future-Future. The main categories of The Aspectual Tenses of Time are summed up into three main groups: Past, Present, and Future. Each Aspectual Tense of Time having 3 individual sub-categorical divisions: neither of them being the same as another.]
I realize I am touching ever-so-lightly upon the whole of this subject. Yet it is important to understand that in order to know a truth from a lie there must be a third level of awareness, which will testify to that both the truth and the lie are both created and maintained by a delusional mind. And furthermore, the truth and the lie are both anthropomorphically created perceptions that are designed to entrap one’s awareness into an enslavement to the artificial intelligence, called Consciousness. Some of you will agree with what I am saying whilst others of you will not understand, or might consider my writings to be high minded rhetoric. Yet the left eye has no knowing of what the right eye is doing for both eyes are consumed with the appearances of seeing. There remaineth though, a third eye that neither sees nor watches: yet remains the proverbial window through which Awareness observes. All of this merits deeper explanations. I just haven’t the time right now for the dance of extrapolations. I will close for now by saying that in order for one to only speak truth, just as for one that is a pathological liar, both are imprisoned within a state of delusional thinking. Albeit fair to say that one delusion is of lesser consequence than another, both bear their own degrees of suffering to the one that wields either of those proverbial swords-of-fate.
In all fairness though to the seeming sincerity of the OP (TransformerRobot) and the original topic of discussion: and after having furthered my analysis of the question, I returned here to say that in order for the question to be accurately answered to the depth of credibility the question deserves, more information is needed to reach a proper conclusion. The question is precipiced upon human beings actually existing beyond the confinements of delusional thinking. The issue for me in all of this, is that the question is anthropomorphicating that which is claiming to be human. And lastly, claiming a knowing of the truth along with claiming a knowing of a lie, are both evidentiary expressions of a delusional mind. Unfortunately some delusions are praised more than others. Yet, someone must be blamed if a profit is to be made.
