My problem with the article is, it never explains the difference between "processing" information and "having" information. And I think that the entire argument

My problem with the article is, it never explains the difference between "processing" information and "having" information. And I think that the entire argument hangs on this distinction. The author essentially claims, that a amoeba has some essence of live which a computer can not posess, but fails to show that the distinction is important beyond semantics. ( To clarify, I think that this is an entirely defendable position, it is just one of the questions where details of definitions really matter.)