Like when talking about that experiment and an image of the dollar bill, it never talks about what's an "image", just states that there wasn't one stored in a brain, in "any sense". And then goes on describing the idea that seem to match the description of a "mental image" from cognitive science.
As I [very naively] get it... Information theory is a field of mathematics. Unlike all those previous concepts like humours, mechanical motions or electric activities, math is here to establish terminology and general principles that don't have to fundamentally change if^W when we learn more. And that's why it got stuck.
(FWIW, I dont think that humans can be reduced to computing, but the Church-Turing thesis is a powerful counterargument which more biologists and psychologists should engage with).
I don’t think most people believe the brain is made up of a discrete Processing part that accesses information from a memory part that’s encoded in binary there. But just because the brain doesn’t contain a literal encoding of something in binary doesn’t mean the neurons don’t store the information.
If you download the weights of an LLM, you’re not going to find the text it can output „from memory“ anywhere in the file, but the weights still encode the information and can retrieve it (with some accuracy).