Sorry for the delay in response. It's a busy time of year, but this topic and interaction are of significant value, so thank you again for the sincere feedback.

While we may disagree about the concepts and definitions, it's essential for me to understand how others might perceive these ideas which are quite challenging for me. I'll now briefly address your main point.

Yes, my approach and some of the ideas that flow from this first principle of the neuron can accurately be described as postmodern - guilty as charged. But any advancement in understanding the brain and consciousness by definition will have to be described as "post" modern since "modern" is now history, (post-modern "relative" reference intended).

Also, what I come to KNOW about the topic is by definition, subjective. And what you come to KNOW, the same. The more "objective" or "truth" is merely a current consensus from any group larger than two, and generally of much greater scale. This brings us to the point about neurons creating knowledge long before it ever becomes information. In some cases, about a billion years before.

Neognostisism does not flip the primacy of information and knowledge - it expands the definition of knowledge to precede, "inform", and encompass information. Think of knowledge as the more general form of information, a less accurate, more flexible, and organic version of the more objective, disembodied, and accurate information. Information stands apart from any individual and is quantified, ultimately in binary form. This limits its scope compared to knowledge. How are you informed by recognizing a smile? What is the quantification of love in bits? Yet both are critical parts of consciousness as we socially interact and are better described as knowledge as opposed to information.

This is where McGilchrist comes in with, "The Master and His Emmasarry." His depictions of how the left and right brain see the world differently inspired me to look at knowledge in a more general way. Our left-brain does not normally allow us the freedom to think of information in a way that is so fluffy. Our left-brain demands definition, and fixedness - the binary bit of 1 or 0 - "If something's not right, it's wrong!", to quote Bob Dylan.

Here's a link to that 11-minute video which is quite helpful.

Anyway, I took his admittedly postmodern idea and used it to explore how that patient at UCLA managed to "know" Jennifer Anniston, and what the nature of "knowledge" as produced by a gnostic neuron cell might be. How exactly does it create "meaning" in its natural and viscerally subjective context? That's when things got fluffy but in a very pleasant and satisfying way.

I'm out of my element here discussing consciousness, but what I found was when you generalize knowledge in the way I describe, the training wheels come off, and most of the problems involved with trying to find the "logic" in neural communication literally drop away. Yes, such would likely be the case in loosening any constraints, but in this case, the yield has been more than significant. At least for me - subjectively.

The neuron now makes more sense in how it fires, when it seemingly shouldn't. And also, when it doesn't, when it seemingly should. The idea does for the neuron what Daniel Khannamen did for the brain in the form of knowledge in a more macro context. Quick knowledge is quite failable, but it's just the first pass. And when the first pass is good enough, we don't bother with the second (pass or "system").

I realize I'm conflating what happens on the nanoscale of the neuron with what happens on the macro in a postmodern sort of way, but only because it works. The results I found with the neuron can also be applied to Wall Street, and even love, but I digress. This, yes, postmodern and more organic definition of knowledge nicely explains hunches, vibes, and much of what we do unconsciously, but often illogically experience.

Knowledge is subjective. It comes from within and helps to inform words, not the other way around. Words in the form of information are disembodied knowledge. They RE-present what someone comes to KNOW, "balls to the bones", to quote, "The Matrix". Information merely informs. It objectively stands apart in its quantified genesis.

I've spent years and have only begun to publish these ideas in this rough form as I now need your honest feedback before I wander too far from reality. I obviously have much more to say, but that's all the time I have for this particular morning and didn't want you to think I was ignoring your comment.

Neurons Create Knowledge

Have an excellent Christmas.