So human errors and faulty memory can be ruled out 100%? So the beliefs results in something. I like this point. I am not quite sure how it came up here. In reaction to Lixeluke I wanted to ask Is knowledge a thing or a process? Because it seems he has a very reified sense of knowledge. Perhaps 'static' is a better adjective. To me knowledge, and even belief, though nouns, refer to processes. I was accepting for the present his conflation of belief and knowledge since that distinction is not the critical one for me in this thread. But I was trying to get to an ontology of knowledge by pressing on the problems with considering knowledge 'correct propositions in the mind'. Here's what you said.... Now I did draw a conclusion, since you did not mention 'things'. And I note again, you did not mention 'things'. Again, not that this proves anything. But you must be aware that most people would directly connect language to things, so it's absence led to my assumptions. And I am not even in disagreement with the position of yours I seem to be hallucinating. It sounds more like phenomenalism. I would take realism as at least a weak claim to knowledge or access to Ding an sich.