It's an interesting set of statements, and after several interchanges it's not easy to state outright exactly what the subject is, because it encompasses so many aspects. I'm not at the educational level of either Felix or Dr. C, so am not sure that anything I have to say would be pertinent. However, there's another aspect of the exchange that satisfies my own ego.
In an interesting frame, I know Felix Grant. We've never met directly, but have been a part of am email group since the late 90's. There are ten of us now. He continues to amaze me, as really do all the members of this group. They're interesting people, each and every one of them. I consider mys elf fortunate to "know" them.
In these years of corresponding, we have discussed an extremely wide range of subjects. Felix has the ability to discuss complex math with us, me specifically, in a way that I can at least understand the principle if not the details. I've always appreciated that.
It's interesting reading the exchange between him and Dr. C. Here we have two persons, a mathematician and a physician, feeling each other out about a subject as esoteric (to me) as the locale of information. Dr. C. has returned to a page from Felix's past when he was the co-author of a series of articles in a UK magazine, Scientific Computing. I believe he is attempting to gain an insight to exactly who Felix Grant is. I'd wager that either before or shortly after he began the series he Googled "Felix Grant". After setting aside all references to an earlier Felix Grant who was a Washington, DC, jazz writer and wonderful radio personality I used to listen to, he is left with information/data/knowledge (?) skeleton about our Felix. Admittedly, I may be wrong about the Googling.
I don't know Dr. C. I believe I would like to, but he keeps his identity a bit more hidden, and, sensing that, I am unwilling to dig to find out more. What's interesting, and wholly gratifying, it seems that he is a physician who is interested in more than the science of his field, assuming, perhaps wrongly, that he is a Medical Doctor, and not a Doctor of Philosophy. He's certainly interesting, and writes well.
In a previous life, my job was to assist clients to develop information systems. Reading Felix and Dr. C., I now become aware of how we limited our definition of information. Information, when designing a computer system, was data that was not previously known. In other words, our computer information systems allowed the manager to view data in such a way that some bit of data was used in a manner that allowed the manager to make better decisions. That definition wouldn't come close to appropriate in the Dr. C's or Felix's discussion.
On the other hand, I'm not aware that there is an adequate definition of information. When a worm that has through stimulation "learned" a lesson, is ground and fed to other worms, and they, to a statistically improbable level, exhibit the learned characteristics, what is information? And how does one determine its locale? The Turing test doesn't ask the right question, or adequately answer the question asked, at least not for me. But there I may be allowing my tendency to believe in a spiritual side of life, though not necessarily a god or gods, to interfere with my logic. In addition, I'm sticking my nose into a discussion about which I know entirely too little.
I'll be following the series, attempting to absorb what these two individuals are discussing. I appreciate their work.