"Signals originating in the brain" vs. "Signals initiating in the brain"

[GoodTaste]

Chronic stress can inflame the gut — now scientists know why
Signals originating in the brain make their way to gut nerve cells, leading to a release of inflammatory chemicals.
Source: Nature

As I read the title "Chronic stress can inflame the gut — now scientists know why Signals originating in the brain......", it run like a lightening in my mind as "Chronic stress can inflame the gut — now scientists know why Signals initiating in the brain......", then I paused because I noticed the difference between "initiating" and "originating".

"Did initiating work here?" I pondered and checked out the definition of the word in my dictionary at hand, which says "initiate, v.t. to begin, set going, or originate: to initiate major social reforms." So both appear to be close and interchangeable. Yet on second thought, it doesn't seem to be quite right to me since "to initiate social reforms" is more subjective than objective. Signals beginning in the brain involves biological automation while the activity of our mind is more subjective.

Do you think that "Signals originating in the brain" and "Signals initiating in the brain" mean exactly the same thing and are interchangeable there?

 

[jutfrank]

No. They have quite different meanings. Also, 'initiate' must be transitive, which means it needs an object.

 

[Tarheel]

Say: "Does initiating work here?" (Not for me.)

It should surprise nobody that stress affects digestion. (it affects everything.)

 

[GoodTaste]

No. They have quite different meanings. Also, 'initiate' must be transitive, which means it needs an object.

So is Signals initiating in the brain ungrammatical and makes no sense?

But if "to initiate signals in the brain, the brain must be alive in the first place" is grammatical and makes sense, I wonder.

 

[jutfrank]

It's ungrammatical and doesn't make sense.