In , on
Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:28:17 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins, wrote:

On Feb 26, 9:52Â*am, Steve Ackman
wrote:
In , on
Sat, 26 Feb 2011 04:39:22 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins, wrote:

However the language of plants is proteins, polysaccharides,
porphyrins etc; biochemical rather than electrical.

Â* Where do biophoto emissions fall in your dichotomy?

There's no dichotomy, I don't have a preferred answer.

Dichotomy doesn't imply preference.
You said "biochemical rather than electrical," implying
those are the two potential alternatives of plant language.
In normal English, that can be described as a dichotomy.
Either... or...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15947465
Bioluminescence is well understood and used in light sticks. An
electron falling between bands that are far enough apart can emit a
photon. There are dumb rocks that can emit light, like zinc sulphide.

You're well aware that a single continuous tone isn't
the same as morse code.

"I take Houdini's approach to paranormal phenomena, not denying
anything but looking very hard at the evidence for intentional or
inadvertent errors. "

I am a lab technician concerned with rigorous methodology, not the
conclusions which I won't have to defend.

I have yet to see you "looking very hard" at any
evidence, much less even giving a cursory glance at
the studies you find fault with.

If it makes you feel better I just made an offering of the mineral-
rich ashes from my stove to the oak tree outside whose spirit watches
over my house. It will drop branches on the roof if I displease it.

sigh I had imagined you to be above that sort of thing.