If ‘know X’ is defined as 'have perceptual input function that constructs perception X together with a reference value for X and control loop(s) effectively controlling X" then knowledge may be either in awareness or ‘subconscious’.
I was commenting on this:
PCT says that the organism constructs a perceptual signal p correlated with an experienced perception X which it takes to be the perceived reality existing separate from the organism in the environment. Martin especially, and Bill and I and others, have referred to this as ‘projecting’ the universe of constructed perceptions into the environment. This projected ‘mirror world’ is all that we know of reality, and our recognition and control of perceptions in it constitutes our knowledge of reality. Subject and object bring each other into being.
The hazards of imagination and illusion are obvious. Science and Buddhism both are deeply concerned with screening out such errors and perceiving just what is. Buddhism, as I understand it, is a science of awareness and knowledge. (The religious aspects come from people fearing the dying process and its sequela and anticipating that they will need help.)
The organism–any living thing, not limited to organisms to which we attribute ‘consciousness’–constructs a signal p within its body, generates an endogenous reference value for that signal, and controls it by means of a more or less complex control loop. The perceptual input functions, perceptual signals, reference signals, and output functions constitute one form of knowledge which is not available to awareness as such. The experiences correlated with the perceptual signals, usually projected into the environment as the realities there perceived (except e.g. those recognized as illusions) constitute another form of knowledge. Something that is often called the Witness is aware of perceptions constituting the subject (a self or persona) and perceptions constituting the environment. As Bill has commented regarding a resting state after an MOL process, the character of the Witness is simple awareness. Some have called it the experiencer, the enjoyer, the rider in the chariot, and of course Dennett derides it as the ghost in the machine. Subject and object bring each other into being, diverging from and reflecting back to what we call awareness.
We are accustomed to finding relationships among things. Here, the relationship creates the relata. This is seen in language, where control of contrasts between words creates the appearance of phonemes. The enormous variability of pronunciations of a word–contextual, dialectal, nonnative, changing through time, etc.–includes, for every possible context, whatever suffices to maintain the contrasts with other possible words. There is no thing there corresponding to the descriptive entity called a phoneme (or phonological feature, etc.)
Reification is a most persuasive habit.