This comes off as a strawman. You're basically treating the term computation as classical computation (which, yes, is not how the brain processes information) and then tearing that assertion apart. If someone says the brain is like a computer, why just assume they strictly mean that information is stored as bits?

The essay briefly references Kurzweil's How to Create a Mind, but goes on to lump it in as information processing. The actual core idea of the book is that the brain behaves as a hierarchical neural network. Certain neurons fire when exposed to certain stimuli. The neurons that fire together form connections, and all these connections together make up a vast hierarchical network. Sure, this can be emulated in a classical computer, but that doesn't mean that an artificial neural network itself operates by storing information as bits. I'm not going to go into detail about how exactly a neural network functions since there is so much literature on the subject.

The results of such systems are proof that this approach in artificial intelligence is clearly similar to how the brain functions. Vision and speech recognition have been the uncontested domain of life for hundreds of millions of years. And yet in just a brief cosmic moment, artificial neural networks have enabled computers to compete and in many cases achieve greater mastery than humans in these areas. This is not a coincidence. This is not because computers are super fast processors. This is directly due to building intelligent systems that emulate the method of computation that the brain uses.

To reiterate the most important takeaway from what I'm saying: just because a neural network can be emulated by a computer does not imply that this neural network processes information the same way as a classical computer does. Information processing does not just come in the single flavor of storing 0's and 1's.