I read the question Does knowledge exist outside human consciousness?. I was so confused. I couldn't figure out what the question was. I think that sometimes the best person at explaining what a question is is somebody who read it and was really struggling to figure out what the question was and then later figured out what the question was saying and then knowing what confusion they had before, they then become really good at figuring out how to explain the confusing things. I would love to find out what the question is actually asking. Then the answer would give me a really good explanation of a confusing thing. Then that would give me some insight into how to explain confusing things.
I know this is somewhat old, but the question asks, basically, how the "knowledge" in terms such as "knowledge management", "knowledge representation, relates to the definitions for knowledge as given by Wikipedia or Plato, which invoke justified belief, or familiarity.
Since the terms "knowledge management" and "knowledge representation" refer to storing data in certain formats in order to make it accessible to machine reasoning, it doesn't refer to conscious minds, but to machines.
The latter definitions deal with conscious minds, so there is confusion as to how "knowledge" can be applied as term if there is no mind involved.
And thus we get the question "Does knowledge exist outside human consciousness?" when it's really just asking what "knowledge" is supposed to mean in the terms "knowledge management" / "knowledge representation".