The author built a strawman by assuming people who use the metaphor of computation literally mean that the brain has a von Neumann architecture [0] or something similar.
His definition of information is not the information theoretic definition, but one that is narrowly confined to his strawman.
It's just an embarrassingly bad attempt at refutation. I can't imagine how someone of his stature could write something like this when he should be familiar with research like our understanding of how the visual and auditory systems work (literally processing information).