This seems to be a semantic argument. That is, an argument that attempts to describe or reframe an existing semantic meaning. It is interesting in the way it a

This seems to be a semantic argument. That is, an argument that attempts to describe or reframe an existing semantic meaning. It is interesting in the way it attempts to shoehorn this meaning into broader idea of information theory (or perhaps also pan-psychism or stoic philosophy). However, rather than taking the lead from information theory, that nothing in particular is special or has meaning, the article digs it's semantic heels in and claims a differentiation between life and not-life. Why? Or at least, why the arbitrary line it has drawn? All particles process information as far as we can tell. Why the differentiation between those things we "know" to be alive vs those we are not sure of. Surely any decent improvement on the current semantic categorisation of life cannot take as a starting point that very categorisation. Whenever i read someone trying to redraw semantic definitions always reminds me of xkcd 927.