The issue is that the definition of “statistics” is anchored in a magnitude of frequency of glyphs. The “information” is fabricated in this regard, pulled up out of the ether, and by decree christened as “meaning”.
Numbers carry no meaning, nor do the magnitudes arbitrarily assigned to meaning. The map is not the territory.
I'm not sure who claimed the brain was a "predictive engine" or what that means exactly. The OP specifically referenced predictive coding which describes precisely what is meant, and has empirical support.
If you meant this as a comparison to machine learning, then a predictive coding model closely matches.
My former claim is that everything in the natural world can be reduced to statistics, so saying meaning cannot be derived "because statistics" is a very poor argument.
The second is a theory for the underlying mechanisms of the brain.
Numbers carry no meaning, nor do the magnitudes arbitrarily assigned to meaning. The map is not the territory.