I make an issue out of the word because you have no valid grounds for using it. Apart from your own assertion that intelligence is the only thing known to take decisions, an assertion undercut by your own ascription of 'decision' to the resolution of probabilities for any event.
I might as well argue that we have only observed intelligence in humans and some animals and therefore all other 'decisions' clearly occur in the absence of intelligence so intelligence is not required for decision.
I can't believe your audacity in accussing me of trying to confuse the issue by using colloquial meanings. The entire basis of your argument, as is so often the case in your work, is an obfustication and missapplication of meanings of terms taken from wildly different contexts in order to conform to your ideological agenda.
I wouldn't have to make an argument from ridicule if your posts weren't quite so ridiculous. I used to be able to conduct a relatively sane correspondence with you but now you seem to have taken to posting big chunks of apparent nonsense, if someone else on the board can clearly explain the rationale behind your ideas in simple terms I'd be grateful to them, you seem to be incapable of doing so.
TTFN,
WK