Posted: Apr 14, 2012 8:03 pm
by Destroyer
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Do you think that anyone reading these posts are confused by the phrase 'chemical impulses' as opposed to chemical signals?

Did you, or did you not, imply to Little idiot that evolution ruled out the possibility of anything other than chemical signals being responsible for what we observe to exist??


I think the words you are searching for are 'matter in motion'. RIP, pl0bs. In the current models, matter is something you get sometime after the quarks condense. Try to keep up.

You use the word 'responsible', but you mean to talk about 'causality'. Causality is a human concept, and it is a damn sight less useful than particle physics is for the construction of models.

What can it mean, "responsible for what we observe to exist"? Imprecise language is the product of imprecise thinking.

You have a way of diverting from the question at hand, Cito di Pense. But you should know by now that I will take you to task no matter how you try to evade the issue.

"Responsible" is the very word I meant to use. Now. Do chemical signals rule out the possibilty of responsible causality, in your opinion??

I will get there in the end. No matter how slick you try to be!