Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11729499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11729499 A comment I very much agree with: > radarsat1

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11729499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11729499 A comment I very much agree with: > radarsat1 on May 19, 2016 [-] > It's not even pedantic, it's just wrong. He's ignoring years of neuroscience. > We know that the brain uses signals, and that these signals are composed of codes. We know that to interpret the world, certain information processing must take place. We are learning more about the exact nature of this processing, more about how neurons and even other fundamentals of the body code information and contribute to processing (e.g. chemical processes), but they definitely process information. We even know some of the codes. > On the other hand, if the author wants to argue about the nature of what is information, what is processing.. he's going to have a steep hill to climb.