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).<p><a href="https://youtu.be/c8iFtaltX-s?t=4751" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/c8iFtaltX-s?t=4751</a><p>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.
Here's a study from 2023 where they apply external electricity to improve healing rate of wounds:<p><a href="https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2023/LC/D2LC01045C" rel="nofollow">https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2023/LC/D2LC0...</a><p>It enabled healing of diabetic wounds that are otherwise hard to heal.
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: <a href="https://www.quantamagazine.org/once-thought-to-support-neurons-astrocytes-turn-out-to-be-in-charge-20260130/" rel="nofollow">https://www.quantamagazine.org/once-thought-to-support-neuro...</a>)
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.<p>>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.”<p>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.
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.
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.<p><a href="https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552" rel="nofollow">https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life...</a>
Could this lead into how there are people who thing non ionising radiation sources affect them?
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.
makes me wonder what effect a low current flowing through the body would have on this process. would it hinder/disrupt this coordination?
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.<p>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.<p>If that potential falls below a certain threshold, certain molecular mechanisms (voltage-sensitive ion channels) inside the cell are triggered that lead to ejection.<p>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.<p>As such, I think the effect of current would depend on the way how it would change the voltage differences of the individual cells.
Why not simply say electricity?
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>In a biological system electrical fields are <i>tiny</i>! 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. (<a href="https://youtu.be/tOTYO5WrXFU" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/tOTYO5WrXFU</a>)<p>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).<p>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.<p>When I asked Google out of curiosity what it had to say it showed this:<p>> Despite their differences, both are fundamentally, at their core, the movement of charged particles driven by electrical potential differences.<p>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.
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.
You're rght. Light? thats just EMF. Infra Red? Emf. Xrays? It's all EMF man.<p>At least thats ITU regulated frequency bands. I wonder if the ITU regulates biogenic DC signalling frequencies?
Michael Levine really opened my mind to phase space in biology.
Yes, but how do they handle Byzantine fault tolerance?
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.<p>Auras and chakras don't sound so silly now do they.
> possible to draw in more energy by breathing and move it round the body<p>We already know what haemoglobin is thanks
"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!"<p>"It'll blow those Astronomers' minds when they start researching Astrology and the powerful effect of being born under auspicious constellations!"<p>__________<p>If the ancient guru knowledge is so great, what <i>testable predictions</i> does it offer, where "auras" are a causal mechanism?<p>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.
> Alchemy and they realize the incredible power of mercury<p>They were just a few centuries too early!<p><a href="https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/nuclear-fusion-gold-mercury" rel="nofollow">https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/nuclear-fusion...</a>
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.<p>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).<p>But don't let facts get in the way of your prejudices.
> 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.<p>What does it <i>actually</i> predict? What measureable predictions can be tested?
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.<p>> predictive method<p>No<p>> corresponding fields<p>What field? Corresponding to what?<p>> changes in energy potential experienced by meditators<p>Link to mentioned research?
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>So let's keep an open mind, our ancestors were anything but idiots.
> So let's keep an open mind, our ancestors were anything but idiots.<p>Just not so open our brains fall out.<p>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.<p>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.
[flagged]