Dogs, cats, and animals in general other than people cannot discuss as we do. There are few that has been observed to have language. Research dolphins.

However, they cognate and have knowledge. The other animal's knowledge is not as vast as our but they still have some conscious awareness they exist. Not that they can philosophize about their existence but they have some measurable means of knowing they exist. If you feel pain or pleasure, can that be an indicator of knowing what harms or benefits you?

@Word Because we cannot communicate with other species that are sentient does not mean that they do not have the ability to philosophize, it just means we cannot communicate with them to share what we both know with each other.

Does light know what color it is. Or is the color a form of knowledge?

When we see light we know the color, basically.

@Word No. There is I think a separation there. Colour is not a truly real thing, but only a code which our brains use to represent, wave length, which in itself is only a hypothetical property of light, awarded to it by science because the true properties of it are only understood in metaphorical form. So you have two metaphorical codes for a property of light , one by our hard wired instinctive brains, and one by our rational science brains. Niether of which tells us what light is only what it does.

@Fernapple plants with green leaves use light except the green color, basically. So, it reflects the green color making to leaves appear green. How does it know to reflect green light, why mostly only green?

As a basic definition I posted, philosophy knowledge is justified belief, not an opinion.

Can a brainless slime mold have knowledge with out justified belief or opinion.

Can something just know something even though it may not have high intelligence cognition?

Would that be beyond philosophy knowledge?

Parasitic cognition?

[google.com]

@Word it certainly seems a bit complex not to have planning at some stage. But I suppose ants are pretty old, 160 million years, so the parasite may have had longer then humans to evolve!

As I stated. to be beyond philosophy. What with all is knowledge as to know as in a minimum cognition capability to hold a minimum piece of knowledge. It's not my question to distinguish between holding information as true and knowing information is true, but the fact of holding information. Information is knowledge. If something has information it has knowledge.

@Word The answer to your question was in the link to epistemology. All you have to do is drill down into the hyperlinks. Look at Metaphysics then look into relationships between mind and matter, substance and attribute, potentiality and actuality.

Looking thru some of the information from link I take for example a diagram statement, "An Euler diagram representing the traditional definition of knowledge as justified true belief. The Gettier problem gives us reason to think that not all justified true beliefs constitute knowledge."

Wheither a belief is justified or not, it is still knowledge. I can have knowledge of incorrect information, nonetheless it is still knowledge and information.

This sort of philosophy of knowledge does not seem to cover what I am thinking about.

@kensmile4u With sight not using language we can "know" the 3 different types of simular things pictured. With language we then give a general label for these 3 different types of "brick".

The knowledge question I am asking is, what is a "unit" of knowledge inso much a person, even an animal like a dog, cat or bird could have knowledge of this "thing" even without having a knowledge of a label for the thing.

I don't see anything about "belief " or justification of belief being anything involved with the fact of having a "knowledge " or to know.