The term "information" is difficult to define. In relation to human beings, the reception of information does not only refer to the conscious but also to the unconscious process. You will know this when you have received training in hypnosis.

People absorb information in their interaction with other people largely through body language, much less through verbal expressions. The totality of communication is much more than just the conveyance of facts; it includes the interpretation of perception. Thus information becomes a process that is individual. In particular, symbolic reasoning is a matter that an AI could hardly keep up with, because it is a human activity that has to do with learning language throughout the body. The neuronal impulses that are measured only say something about the "where", but nothing about the "what" and "why". Information is interpreted in terms of its meaning in the context of its occurrence. A person who witnesses an act of violence, for example, can unconsciously or consciously think of historical events such as war. A memory of which he is not aware suddenly flashes up and causes a certain feeling about the situation. Without the fact that man himself has even come close to this physical violence, he can feel compassion and fear.

From where, for example, should an AI take the collective memory of a family system, the unconsciously passed on convictions of parents who were refugees, for example, and pass on their fears and judgments to their children? A human being is not a self-contained operational system, it is an ecosystem that interacts with all other systems.

Information that makes sense does not just consist of an electromagnetic impulse, it is not just a physical singular event. People think in contexts and events to which they give meaning. This sense is not found in the neuronal impulses, they may only serve as a partial expression of a whole organism, in which not only the brain but everything in the human body is involved.

So where is the information localized or where is its initial origin to be found when people are interacting? The answer is that we do not know. There is no such thing as a definite beginning and a definite end of an information process.

To simulate a human brain, wet-ware would be needed if it were to be transferred to machine technology. But then you would simply have a wet electronic brain, but no human-like intelligence. One would have exactly that: a moist artificial brain mass that "processes" electronic impulses.

AI can therefore never be better or a kind of almighty knowledge store, AI is always something else, but just like humans, it must specialize its knowledge in order to be useful.

A big difference between a computer AI and a human being is that a machine learns only through 0 and 1, but a human being, when born, learns through all senses, most of all through the sense of feeling as a baby. This completely different way of learning should be clear to us.

Any technology that man has developed is merely an extension of his phyiscal extremities, his legs are symbolized by the car or the plane, his cognitive abilities like reading and calculating are symbolized by computers.

One could speak of a knife as technology, since it is an extension of fingers with sharp nails, only sharper and harder.

Another aspect is the human immune system. It is nowhere concrete in the body. We do not know "where" it is, we only know that humans do not fully understand the functioning of their immune system and that they can only influence their immunity to a limited extent, although this alone is remarkable.

The only possibility of transferability and creation of human intelligence is human reproduction resulting from pregnancy and childbirth.

In the case of cultural phenomena such as the experimental situation of neuroexperiments, the scientific claim is questionable, because only natural phenomena (although this does not apply in quantum physics either), but not cultural phenomena, can be isolated and abstracted. The pictorial representations of neuronal processes cannot really depict "real time", because they already undergo an interpretation on the basis of generated imaging, thus real time is not really given, but only an approximation.

Because the observation (and thus also a neuro-experiment) already intervenes in the state of the brain and changes it in a way that cannot be fully controlled, a first uncertainty relation of the brain is justified: The psychological and physiological state of the brain cannot be defined simultaneously.

This fuzziness is plausible in epistemological terms and its consequences too:
It is clear "that a description on the physiological level cannot be systematically transferred to one of the psychic levels".

In contrast to Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, a quantitative formulation of uncertainty cannot be afforded, at best a not exactly specifiable "dispersion in relation to event sequences". Since the brain is a dynamic system that interacts with the experimental situation (which also implies a non-repeatability of the experiment!), it is imperative to recognize "that a strict causality cannot be observed". Olivier therefore concludes consistently: "There is no strict causality in the psyche".
Every causal observation is (necessarily) imprecise and already intervenes in the state of the brain.

As an epistemologically experienced scientist, it is also clear to Olivier that the brain is perceived from two completely different perspectives, namely from the endo-view (experiencing) and from the exo-view (observing). Both perspectives represent "states of the brain", but from different perspectives that can never be brought into line. Olivier therefore formulates a second uncertainty relation of the brain: "Endo- and exo-view of a system cannot be taken completely at the same time".

http://www.trend.infopartisan.net/trd0207/t140207.html

You seem to know what I've mentioned here and I largely agree with you. I wrote it also down for other readers who may fall for the illusion that Neuroscience alone can give us answers about human health or disease, where it's largely used for.

Where I do not fully agree on is what is quoted by you:

volunteers were able to quickly solve complex visual puzzles they had not previously had exposure to.

Also, I'd say it's about memory, something called "collective memory" in the Jungian sense as well as by Rupert Sheldrake wo speaks of a morphogenetic field.

People do not exactly know if they before were exposed to a visual puzzle through consciousness, therefore their statement that they never have been exposed to this puzzle cannot be trusted. The subconscious may very well have been exposed to it. But I find it quite fascinating that learning through the transference of other peoples consciousnesses/subconsciousnesses seems indeed possible.