[HN Gopher] Cells use 'bioelectricity' to coordinate and make gr...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Cells use 'bioelectricity' to coordinate and make group decisions
        
       Author : marojejian
       Score  : 164 points
       Date   : 2026-02-01 00:00 UTC (23 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org)
        
       | marojejian wrote:
       | Even since reading about Michael Levin's work, I've been sold
       | that there is a lot going on in terms of bioelectricity outside
       | of neurons. But I haven't seen that much progress. This is one
       | interesting, albeit simple example.
       | 
       | >In this way, bioelectrical flow across cell membranes lets
       | tissues test which cells are the least healthy and mark them for
       | extrusion. "They're always pushing against each other and
       | bullying each other. And what they're doing is probing each other
       | for which one's the weakest link," Rosenblatt said. "It's a
       | community effect."
       | 
       | This fits with my model of how high levels of cooperation succeed
       | in biology. Even in a community as homogeneous as cells you have
       | the risk of defectors (cancer), or just poor members. As such you
       | need a process to continually test your community members.
        
       | FranklinJabar wrote:
       | Why not simply say electricity?
        
         | ggm wrote:
         | You're rght. Light? thats just EMF. Infra Red? Emf. Xrays? It's
         | all EMF man.
         | 
         | At least thats ITU regulated frequency bands. I wonder if the
         | ITU regulates biogenic DC signalling frequencies?
        
         | skyberrys wrote:
         | The article notes that bioelectricity is just referring to
         | electricity not occuring in the heart or brain which has a
         | different specialized name. Simply saying electricity is
         | captures more than the cell types reported on.
        
           | FranklinJabar wrote:
           | So this is sort of.. environmentally available electrical
           | potential in the cell? Or is it more constrained than the
           | venues from the heart and the cell to other specific venues?
        
         | nosianu wrote:
         | Because that is useless? The physical phenomenon is so very,
         | very different in biological systems compared to the metal-wire
         | electricity our electrical devices are based on that they are
         | entirely different things.
         | 
         | For example, charge carriers are electrons in metal wires vs.
         | ions in biological systems. That has huge implications, because
         | moving around ions is a lot harder, and slower.
         | 
         | In a metal wire the electrical field is established from
         | beginning to the end, and that means that the electrons at the
         | end start moving at pretty much the same time as the ones at
         | the other end, no matter how long the wire. That means in a
         | metal wire signals move at a significant fraction of the speed
         | of light in a vacuum, because it is the speed of the electrical
         | field and not that of the charge carriers that matters.
         | 
         | In a biological system electrical fields are _tiny_! The way
         | the signal propagates in an axon is much more cumbersome,
         | expensive, and slow. Speed of signal propagation is ca. 1 /2 to
         | at most 100 m/s (for thick myelinated axons). The signal is
         | propagated by jumping in very tiny steps along the axon's inner
         | surface. (https://youtu.be/tOTYO5WrXFU)
         | 
         | This also makes The Matrix movies' main premise about humans as
         | batteries a little strange: Sure, there's lots of electrical
         | activity, but it is in trillions of very tiny places across
         | nanometer distances. And it is created by moving ions around
         | (at great energy cost).
         | 
         | So anyway, what actually physically happens in an electrical
         | grid of metal wires, or in a biological system are vastly
         | different things. It is not the same "electricity", the only
         | thing they have in common is that electrical fields and charge
         | carriers (but different ones) are involved. But the way it is
         | structured, created, propagated is entirely different in both
         | cases.
         | 
         | When I asked Google out of curiosity what it had to say it
         | showed this:
         | 
         | > Despite their differences, both are fundamentally, at their
         | core, the movement of charged particles driven by electrical
         | potential differences.
         | 
         | This is just not correct! The "the movement of charged
         | particles" part specifically. Again, wires have one electrical
         | field, but in biological systems propagation is entirely
         | different, and slow, and expensive! The methods used to
         | propagate a signal are not even remotely comparable. That's a
         | difference not even a Radio Yerevan joke could make use of.
        
           | carolosf wrote:
           | I think in the original story of the Matrix humans were not
           | batteries but meant to be used as biological GPUs for the
           | machines to run upon. The studio felt that this idea might be
           | too confusing in 1999. So that's why Morpheus holds up a
           | battery.
        
             | runlaszlorun wrote:
             | Oh wow. That's far less ridiculous a notion.
        
           | GordonS wrote:
           | This is very informative - just wanted to say thanks!
        
       | bitwize wrote:
       | Yes, but how do they handle Byzantine fault tolerance?
        
         | taneq wrote:
         | T-cells. :P
        
       | jeffybefffy519 wrote:
       | Could this lead into how there are people who thing non ionising
       | radiation sources affect them?
        
         | nandomrumber wrote:
         | One acquaintance, after years of trying to work out what was
         | wrong and believing EM missions may play a role turned out to
         | have hemochromotosis (genetic disorder characterized by
         | excessive intestinal absorption of dietary iron, resulting in a
         | pathological increase in total body iron) which is fixed by
         | regular blood donations.
        
           | Noaidi wrote:
           | You're making an assumption here that it was not the
           | increased iron in her body that made them more sensitive to
           | electromagnetic fields. I mean, I'm not saying it's true or
           | not, but that's the mistake you're making in your argument.
           | 
           | I think many people who don't have EMF sensitivity find EMFs
           | something easy to say is the cause their health issues, but
           | they approach how to figure it out if it is true with zero
           | scientific thought.
        
         | Noaidi wrote:
         | Yes, I think it is. And I am one of these people who are
         | sensitive to electromagnetic fields. Both radio frequency and
         | lower frequency magnetic and electric fields.
         | 
         | No, I'm not running around with a tinfoil hat on thinking that
         | it's going to kill me, but it does cause me, insomnia,
         | nightmares, and a worsening of my mood disorder.
         | 
         | The problem is since voltage gated ion channels are also
         | associated with mood disorders[1] and are, I believe, how EMF's
         | effect certain people, then it's easy to play our sensitivity
         | off as just our mood disorder.
         | 
         | [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3646240/
        
         | 1718627440 wrote:
         | I mean you are essentially projecting energy somewhere. Of
         | course it causes something. The availability of a different
         | level of energy changes chemical balances and reactions. It can
         | also trigger some sensors or effectors. It might also just
         | temporarily increase the temperature, but trigger nothing else.
        
       | Torkel wrote:
       | Here's a study from 2023 where they apply external electricity to
       | improve healing rate of wounds:
       | 
       | https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2023/LC/D2LC0...
       | 
       | It enabled healing of diabetic wounds that are otherwise hard to
       | heal.
        
       | inshard wrote:
       | Michael Levine really opened my mind to phase space in biology.
        
       | mjanx123 wrote:
       | Electricity is the core of a single cell functionality as well,
       | most biomolecules are on the exact boundary between a conductor
       | and an insulator (and likely switch the state based on other
       | molecules binding, pH, etc). A group of cells electricity is a
       | higher level abstraction of that.
       | 
       | https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life...
        
       | pyaamb wrote:
       | makes me wonder what effect a low current flowing through the
       | body would have on this process. would it hinder/disrupt this
       | coordination?
        
         | xg15 wrote:
         | The article describes the mechanism in some detail near the
         | end. As I understand it, it's not really "coordination" in the
         | sense that they exchange messages through the electricity.
         | 
         | It's more that every cell has to maintain a voltage difference
         | between the inside and outside ("membrane potential"). A
         | healthy cell does that constantly using "ion pumps" that use
         | chemical energy (ATP) to increase the potential.
         | 
         | If that potential falls below a certain threshold, certain
         | molecular mechanisms (voltage-sensitive ion channels) inside
         | the cell are triggered that lead to ejection.
         | 
         | Interestingly, are also other mechanisms (pressure-sensitive
         | ion channels) that will "intentionally" make it harder for a
         | cell to maintain its potential if it's already weakened or if
         | the surrounding region is very crowded.
         | 
         | As such, I think the effect of current would depend on the way
         | how it would change the voltage differences of the individual
         | cells.
        
           | manmal wrote:
           | I wonder what the role of inflammation in all this is. It
           | must be a major disrupter (or the effect?) of such electrical
           | comms, with all these cytokines and fluid influx changing
           | things around.
        
       | nprateem wrote:
       | It'll blow their minds when they start researching chi kung and
       | realise it's possible to draw in more energy by breathing and
       | move it round the body. It's also possible to feel some kind of
       | field around the body.
       | 
       | Auras and chakras don't sound so silly now do they.
        
         | Terr_ wrote:
         | "It'll blow those Chemists' minds when they start researching
         | Alchemy and they realize the incredible power of mercury and
         | lead to rejuvenate the body and lead to an elixir of youth!"
         | 
         | "It'll blow those Astronomers' minds when they start
         | researching Astrology and the powerful effect of being born
         | under auspicious constellations!"
         | 
         | __________
         | 
         | If the ancient guru knowledge is so great, what _testable
         | predictions_ does it offer, where  "auras" are a causal
         | mechanism?
         | 
         | In other words, not: "Thou must intake the golden aura of oats
         | and fiber by eating some, to counter the dark brown blockage of
         | your Pu-point." The folk remedy might well solve your
         | constipation, but it wouldn't be evidence for the mythology
         | around it.
        
           | djtango wrote:
           | It feels really great to wield the scientific method and feel
           | supercilious to all other people and ideas that do not arise
           | from such infallible reasoning, and sure the progress of
           | humanity hockey sticked since empiricism took hold. But let's
           | not forget that empiricism is limited by what we
           | can/want/think to measure.
           | 
           | Like it's pretty well accepted that breathing exercises have
           | physiological and mental health benefits but it took decades
           | of consumerist appropriation of yoga and other techniques
           | before academia properly found the motivation to earnestly
           | investigate that yes breathing exercises are indeed good for
           | you.
           | 
           | As someone who is a deep practitioner of martial arts and
           | athletics, if the metaphors of qi gong and yoga were purely
           | powerful visualisation aids that already provides more than
           | enough tangible benefit. I don't need scientists to tell me
           | that qi is good for my body - I can feel it.
           | 
           | So let's keep an open mind, our ancestors were anything but
           | idiots.
        
             | ben_w wrote:
             | > So let's keep an open mind, our ancestors were anything
             | but idiots.
             | 
             | Just not so open our brains fall out.
             | 
             | Our ancestors were just like us, but fewer in number and
             | inventing things from scratch. Miasma, spontaneous
             | generation, Newtonian gravity, these were not people being
             | idiots, and even though they have been shown to be wrong
             | they are still close enough to still be useful today.
             | Phlogiston also wasn't idiotic, but lacks utility vs being
             | correct about oxygen.
             | 
             | One of the shared ways we failed then and now is that what
             | sounds true isn't the same as what is true; the modern easy
             | example of this is how easily many of us get fooled by
             | LLMs, and I suspect that's how a lot of ancient religions
             | grew, with additions and copy-errors evolving them to be
             | maximally plausible-sounding to a human mind.
        
           | nprateem wrote:
           | Proper hatha yoga (not the modern hijacked nonsense) is
           | literally a predictive method to experience deeper aspects of
           | oneself, one part of which is a greater sensitivity to energy
           | movements and corresponding fields.
           | 
           | There is already western research on kundalini, the most
           | potent example of bioelectrical energy, and changes in energy
           | potential experienced by meditators. Not to mention countless
           | empirical self-reports (upon which a good scientist would
           | keep an open mind).
           | 
           | But don't let facts get in the way of your prejudices.
        
             | Angostura wrote:
             | > is literally a predictive method to experience deeper
             | aspects of oneself, one part of which is a greater
             | sensitivity to energy movements and corresponding fields.
             | 
             | What does it _actually_ predict? What measureable
             | predictions can be tested?
        
               | nprateem wrote:
               | That it will trigger this:
               | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35846598/
               | 
               | I know a lot of people here like to believe Western
               | science knows everything, but fortunately there's still a
               | lot left to discover.
        
             | fooker wrote:
             | Words have meaning, don't write random things about a topic
             | you don't understand because of cultural pride. What you
             | have written is nonsense and demeans hatha yoga, among
             | other things.
             | 
             | > predictive method
             | 
             | No
             | 
             | > corresponding fields
             | 
             | What field? Corresponding to what?
             | 
             | > changes in energy potential experienced by meditators
             | 
             | Link to mentioned research?
        
               | nprateem wrote:
               | Lol. You'll want to learn what an electromagnetic field
               | is.
               | 
               | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31249516/
               | 
               | Welcome.
        
               | krackers wrote:
               | I think it's worth taking the results seriously but not
               | the proposed mechanism literally. Equating an internal
               | feeling which is loosely referred to as a form of
               | "energy" with physical electricity/bioelectricity would
               | be a mistake. Of course all sensations are indirectly the
               | result of nerve impulses and bioelectricity, but you
               | wouldn't say that someone experiencing tingles of say
               | ASMR has literally received "energy".
               | 
               | It may turn out that you can consciously influence
               | bioelectricity on certain levels (I mean you can
               | certainly control motor functions, maybe you can modulate
               | the current of injury [1] by thinking about a body
               | part?). But you need to be clear about the level of
               | abstraction: when you feel a pit in your stomach are you
               | going to literally attribute this to "clogged energy in
               | your lower dantian", at the chemical level of increased
               | norepinephrine and reduced blood flow to your stomach, or
               | simply as a result of your emotions and anxieties at the
               | moment?
               | 
               | A less fanciful way to say "experience deeper aspects of
               | oneself, one part of which is a greater sensitivity to
               | energy movements and corresponding fields" might simply
               | be "greater sensitivity to emotion and bodily awareness".
               | People do the same thing with therapy, discovering
               | emotional/mental baggage they'd been carrying for a long
               | time, and parts of the body they had been unconsciously
               | tensing.
               | 
               | When everything in our body is meditated by impulses and
               | electricity, saying that you're "becoming more attuned to
               | energy" can be technically true but a functionally
               | useless abstraction. You can equally say "more attuned to
               | chemical fluctuations in your brain/body" or "more
               | attuned to homeostasis disruptions". Maybe in the past
               | they didn't have the vocabulary to distinguish these
               | levels of abstraction, but today we do. (And Michael
               | Levin's work is showing that we've actually been
               | underpaying attention to the bioelectric). This is the
               | same way that the "theory of humors" sort of makes sense
               | on a metaphorical level but it falls apart in a literal
               | sense.
               | 
               | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_of_injury
        
             | an0malous wrote:
             | Where can one learn proper hatha yoga?
        
               | nprateem wrote:
               | 8limbs.com. Gregor Maehle has written some excellent
               | books and has some good on-demand courses.
               | 
               | Also the free lessons on aypsite.org
        
           | fooker wrote:
           | > Alchemy and they realize the incredible power of mercury
           | 
           | They were just a few centuries too early!
           | 
           | https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/nuclear-
           | fusion...
        
             | nandomrumber wrote:
             | The Alchemists were right, just not _ambitious enough_.
             | 
             | If they'd've started with turning hydrogen in to gold
             | they'd've had more success, and we'd be a space fairing
             | species by now.
        
               | fooker wrote:
               | Step 1: yeet mercury into a mini sun.
               | 
               | If this actually works, I'm going to be convinced that
               | some alchemist overheard an alien dude talking about this
               | but misinterpreted it in line with contemporary
               | knowledge.
        
               | ben_w wrote:
               | It does work, but nobody really cares because of all the
               | radiation involved.
               | 
               | Here's a paper, but given the date I have no idea if it
               | was written by humans or by AI:
               | https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13461
        
               | fooker wrote:
               | Seems the radiation goes away in a decade or so, not a
               | huge amount of time in the grand scheme of things.
               | 
               | And I guess irradiated gold or a weird gold isotope would
               | be just fine for putting in electronics that is meant to
               | go beyond low earth orbit.
        
               | runlaszlorun wrote:
               | It's not their fault, they didn't have lean startup and
               | blitz scaling yet. </s>
        
         | ben_w wrote:
         | > possible to draw in more energy by breathing and move it
         | round the body
         | 
         | We already know what haemoglobin is thanks
        
         | an0malous wrote:
         | I agree, I think we're rediscovering the life force:
         | https://labyrinths.xyz/posts/yuga-cycles-and-the-life-force
         | 
         | To me the most interesting part of Levin's research is that
         | they can convince cells to grow two arms, two tails, etc. and
         | when they cut off the two tails, it grows back with two tails.
         | This is without any genetic changes, so where is the
         | information being stored?
         | 
         | Likewise there's research that butterflies can be taught to
         | have aversions to certain chemicals or smells in the
         | caterpillar state, and they continue to have those aversions in
         | the butterfly state even though they're entire body becomes a
         | chemical soup during the chrysalis stage. Where is that
         | behavioral information being stored if not neurons?
         | 
         | I think this is pointing to a discover that's much more
         | profound than the body using electricity in interesting ways. I
         | think it's pointing to a new force or new aspect of
         | electromagnetism that hasn't been discovered yet.
        
       | jupiterelastica wrote:
       | For those interested in more details and quite mind blowing
       | examples, here is a fascinating interview with Michael Levin (one
       | of the researchers mentioned in the article).
       | 
       | https://youtu.be/c8iFtaltX-s?t=4751
       | 
       | Start at 1:19:11, the stuff before is him talking about biology,
       | but from an intelligence perspective. After this time stamp is
       | his retrospective on his bioelectricity research over the years,
       | showing also examples of how they got a frog embryo to produce
       | eyes, and many more things.
        
         | joel_liu wrote:
         | Thanks for sharing this timestamp - Levin's retrospective on
         | bioelectricity research is compelling. What fascinates me most
         | is how his work challenges the gene-centric view of
         | development. The experiments showing bioelectric patterns can
         | override genetic instructions (like inducing eye formation in
         | non-eye tissue) reveal a whole layer of morphogenetic
         | information we're just beginning to understand.
        
           | nandomrumber wrote:
           | I don't believe genetics ever claimed to provide a theory of
           | why eyes grow where eyes grow.
           | 
           | The cells in your eyes have exactly the same DNA as the cells
           | in your big toe, so developmental morphology cannot be
           | explained with DNA alone.
        
             | mojosam wrote:
             | > I don't believe genetics ever claimed to provide a theory
             | of why eyes grow where eyes grow.
             | 
             | That's the whole point of developmental biology, to show
             | how features of the human body form and develop based on
             | gene expression, the timing of which during embryonic and
             | fetal development itself is dictated by your genes.
             | 
             | If not your genes, what else would determine why you have
             | eyes in about the same place in your head as every other
             | human?
             | 
             | > The cells in your eyes have exactly the same DNA as the
             | cells in your big toe, so developmental morphology cannot
             | be explained with DNA alone.
             | 
             | Sure it can, because while every cell has essentially the
             | same DNA, the expression of genes differs between cells,
             | which is what causes cells to differentiate. And this
             | differentiation also controls development; look up the Hox
             | genes as an example.
        
               | zmgsabst wrote:
               | Your last paragraph is their point: genes are regulated
               | to produce that effect. The genes themselves aren't doing
               | it, but eg diffusion of chemical signals to inactivate
               | genes.
               | 
               | Morphology is determined by the combination of genes,
               | chemical signals, original cell machinery, and apparently
               | electrical signals. But we never believed that genes
               | determined morphology alone, eg, we know that chemical
               | signals can cause anomalies.
        
               | mmooss wrote:
               | > Morphology is determined by the combination of genes,
               | chemical signals, original cell machinery, and apparently
               | electrical signals. But we never believed that genes
               | determined morphology alone, eg, we know that chemical
               | signals can cause anomalies.
               | 
               | For the consistent parts - eyes may be different colors
               | but are overwhelmingly consistent - what else could be
               | the ultimate cause but DNA? For example, if those
               | chemical signals, cell machinary, and electrical signals
               | produce the same results billions of times over 200,000
               | years, then they must function the same overall. How does
               | that happen if the chemical signals, cell machinary, and
               | electrical signals aren't determined, even if indirectly,
               | by DNA?
        
               | zmgsabst wrote:
               | An example of the contrary:
               | 
               | Your eyes would be misplaced if the process from cell
               | clump to mat to tubule failed due to chemical signaling
               | failure, but the whole embryo tends to be spontaneously
               | aborted when gestation fails so catastrophically.
               | 
               | And despite genitalia being roughly one of two forms and
               | similarly positioned, chemical signals can disrupt their
               | formation.
               | 
               | > How does that happen if the chemical signals, cell
               | machinary, and electrical signals aren't determined, even
               | if indirectly, by DNA?
               | 
               | They don't produce the same results with perfect accuracy
               | -- 75% of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted, at least
               | in part due to developmental failures.
               | 
               | But the problem with this argument is simple: you have a
               | human cell everywhere you have human DNA, so those
               | correlations with DNA are also correlations with cellular
               | machinery and with particular chemical signals from the
               | mother. There was no point in those 200,000 years where
               | DNA operated independently of those other mechanisms --
               | we can only say the system as a whole reliably creates
               | those features.
        
               | mmooss wrote:
               | Interesting points, especially about the challenge of
               | correlation. I guess we could remove DNA and see what
               | happens ...
               | 
               | Somehow the machinary is passed down: Do we know of
               | another mechanism besides DNA that is self-perpetuating?
               | Is there any living creature without it? Prokaryotes
               | (bacteria) even have DNA.
               | 
               | Or is there a way to do it without self-perpetuating
               | mechanisms? Is that logically possible? Some machinary
               | might be perpetuated by other machinary, e.g. the
               | chemical might recreate the electrical, meaning it's not
               | _self_ -perpetuating. But that's not different than DNA:
               | DNA itself isn't the machinary, but its self-perpetuation
               | is what recreates other parts.
               | 
               | I suppose some parts of the environment are consistent,
               | such as sunlight, air, water, and heat, but the
               | environmental stimuli must trigger something that is
               | already there.
        
               | kevlened wrote:
               | He's changed wild-type planarians to grow the heads of
               | other species. It reverts after a few weeks, because the
               | system has error-correcting mechanisms, but the DNA of
               | these worms is unchanged.
               | 
               | He once compared tinkering with DNA as pulling out a
               | soldering iron to fix a software bug.
               | 
               | In the case of morphology, DNA may not be the best level
               | of abstraction. It's certainly possible, just as one can
               | use chemistry for social problems, but for some problems,
               | affecting cell-to-cell communication may be a more direct
               | path.
        
               | mmooss wrote:
               | > If not your genes, what else would determine why you
               | have eyes in about the same place in your head as every
               | other human?
               | 
               | Theoretically, it could be second or much higher order
               | effects that result from genes. It could be a combination
               | of complex factors - the environment in the womb,
               | nutrition, behavior by the mother, etc. - that eventually
               | trace back to DNA.
               | 
               | Also, is it literally true that DNA is the only thing
               | that's consistent (in these respects) between all
               | generations of Homo sapiens?
        
             | RaftPeople wrote:
             | > _The cells in your eyes have exactly the same DNA as the
             | cells in your big toe_
             | 
             | Is that true?
             | 
             | I know that cells in the brain have significant variability
             | in DNA, but not really aware of what non-neuronal and non-
             | brain cells in general typically have.
        
               | arrosenberg wrote:
               | Every cell in your body (excepting red blood cells) has a
               | complete copy of your genome. What differs is which
               | portions are activated.
        
         | jnpnj wrote:
         | Great link, he also discusses the start of his lab. The
         | discovery of bioelectricity induced eye "modeling" was ..kinda
         | crazy.
         | 
         | Also, I've been trying to find people to discuss this, so I set
         | up a discord server:
         | 
         | https://discord.gg/gdaSgDgC5y
         | 
         | if anyone is interest (note: i'm just a software engineer, not
         | in biomedicine or bioelectricity yet). if there are already
         | long running discord servers then i'd rather join these instead
         | :)
        
         | seanclayton wrote:
         | Just want to say, the "stuff" before is absolutely necessary
         | groundwork to even begin comprehending the implications.
        
       | zkmon wrote:
       | It was known for a long time that some reflexes and responses are
       | mostly spontaneous and don't require decisions from the mind.
       | Such reactions, such as pulling away when touched a hot surface,
       | do require muscle contraction which in turn requires electrical
       | pulses, which indicates the presence of bio electrical charges
       | everywhere. Can some help me understand what exactly is new here.
       | I knew that something is new.
        
         | Angostura wrote:
         | What you are talking about is the functional use of electrical
         | impulses to active muscle. This article is talking about
         | electrical potential as signalling mechanism for cell health,
         | than can be used by a tissue to eject aging or sick cells
        
         | gus_massa wrote:
         | Thats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_reflex
         | 
         | The "decition" is made by the spinal cord. It's not surprising
         | if you imagine that the brain is an oversized part of the
         | spinal cord.
         | 
         | See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganglion
        
           | MichaelZuo wrote:
           | If it's known some kind of decision making, so to speak, was
           | happening via electrical signals in the spinal cord... why is
           | it suprising that it happens in other types of cells too?
        
             | gus_massa wrote:
             | Neurons can do more operations than normal cells.
             | 
             | If I can make a bad approximation:
             | 
             | * Making circuits with normal cells is like making circuits
             | with resistors and capacitors.
             | 
             | * Making circuits with neurons is like adding transistors
             | to the mix.
             | 
             | (Please don't take this analogy too seriously, probably
             | biologist and electricians are writing angry replies now.)
        
       | mbeex wrote:
       | From a layman's perspective, another interesting (somewhat
       | related?) example of a long-range effect that is not determined
       | by neurons themselves (also a recent Quanta article:
       | https://www.quantamagazine.org/once-thought-to-support-neuro...)
        
       | Noaidi wrote:
       | People can read these articles and go oh cool, but then in the
       | same breath they will say radio frequency electromagnetic fields
       | have no effect on human health.
        
         | azan_ wrote:
         | It's because this article does not show that radio frequency
         | electromagnetic fields have effect on human health.
        
           | Noaidi wrote:
           | That's because you have to read more than what you read on
           | hacker news.
           | 
           | https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11298025/
        
       | mojosam wrote:
       | This is classic Quanta Magazine sensationalism. Here's what the
       | study actually said:
       | 
       | As cells in epithelial tissue get crowded, their membranes start
       | to allow more sodium ions to enter, which makes the cell more
       | electrically positive (depolarization). The cells try to counter
       | this, but cells with insufficient stored energy (ATP) will
       | struggle to do so, and will lose water through their membranes,
       | causing them to shrink, which causes them to signal their
       | neighbors to extrude them.
       | 
       | So there's no "group decisions" being made, no "coordination"
       | between cells using "bioelectricity". Yes, all cells rely on
       | electrical potentials across their membranes for normal
       | functioning, potentials that they have to maintain. That's all
       | the involvement of electricity here.
       | 
       | And the only "decision-making" happening here is within a single
       | cell, but of course cells don't "make decisions', cells are
       | little machines, and part of the mechanism for epithelial cells
       | -- a mechanism that works in part using chemistry and electricity
       | -- includes the cell signaling that it needs to be extruded in
       | certain circumstances, like shrinkage.
        
         | pinnochio wrote:
         | This is correct.
        
       | avonmach wrote:
       | Reminds me of Lakhovsky's book, The Secret of Life
        
         | jnaz343 wrote:
         | It reminds me of Biologically Closed Electric Circuits - Bjorn
         | Nordenstrom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKXH_4PNPcQ
        
           | avonmach wrote:
           | Interesting, thanks for sharing this
        
       | simmanian wrote:
       | Michael Levin's ontology (that the body basically acts as
       | pointers to the mind in Platonic Realm) is so crazy that I want
       | it to be true.
        
         | mmooss wrote:
         | Very interesting. Does Levin talk about the Platonic aspects
         | directly? Where can I read about it?
        
           | jmcmichael wrote:
           | Yes, he discusses the Platonic aspects of his theory in a
           | paper, "Ingressing Minds: Causal Patterns Beyond Genetics and
           | Environment in Natural, Synthetic, and Hybrid Embodiments":
           | 
           | https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/5g2xj_v1
        
           | m-a-t-t-i wrote:
           | Here is a page that collects material related to the Platonic
           | space: https://thoughtforms.life/symposium-on-the-platonic-
           | space/
        
           | simmanian wrote:
           | I find the Q&As on his personal blog the most accessible way
           | to grasp his views: https://thoughtforms.life/qa-from-the-
           | internet-and-recent-pr...
        
       | xaedes wrote:
       | Robert O. Becker also studied this. His book "The Body Electric"
       | (1985) was quite interesting. Nice to see some more recent
       | research into this topic.
        
       | mannyv wrote:
       | What was striking was how much of the cell's energy is spent
       | maintaining that voltage. 25% is a lot.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-02-01 23:01 UTC)