I am making available what I hope is the finally revised
version of a paper which discusses the inadequacies of the ionic
channel school's account of nerve impulse propagation as presented
by Bertil Hille, John Eccles, John Koester et alii. This paper is a
partly revised paper of the same name ("Biology, Bioelectricity, and
the Nervous System") that was available on the Internet last year. It
has been revised to deal with the criticisms of it received at that
time. The reader is encouraged to bring to the attention of the
author any problems, question, or comments which may arise. The
paper points out that the favored definitions for electricity (the net
movement or flow of electrical charge, or, pace Hille, 'charges of
opposite sign are separated or can move independently') are based on
19th century treatments of electricity as a fluid, but still fail to
account for a phenomenon noticed in the early 19th century with
regard to electricity, that of induced magnetic fields. The paper
discusses how flimsy definitions of electricity are relied upon by
the ionic channel school in order to allow for the possibility of
proton or molecular electricity, ion currents, and to allow for the
use of Nernst's 19th century, thermodynamic equations which
express in volts the difference in order/entropy between two
concentrations of a single ion.
The paper points out that in Hille's 'classical biophysics'
"Membrane biophysicists seek to explain these rules of cellular
response in terms of physical chemistry and electricity." But the
'biophysical method' "...is austere on the chemical side, however, as
it cares less about the chemistry of the structures involved than
about the dynamic and equilibrium properties they exhibit." The
paper points out how the preferred version of the measured
electrodynamics of the cell membrane, awarded a Nobel prize in
1963, thoroughly confuses electrochemistry with electricity, and
thereby, in its incompleteness and befuddlement, fails to exploit the
use of DC stimulation to simulate strong CNS, peripheral-synaptic
functioning and thereby remedy many of the chronic and degenerative
disorders that have their origins in this circumstance (i.e., the
weakening of CNS triggered, post-synaptic anabolism). These
disorders range from emphysema, muscular weakness, heart disease,
diabetes mellitus, Crohn's disease, myopia, to disorders arising from
weakened or perturbed immune functioning, i.e., auto-immune
diseases such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, Lupus.
The paper presents one possible 'epiphenomenalist' (Hille's
term) explanation for the readings gained by the ionic channel
neuroscientist. This explanation stresses electrochemistry rather
than electricity however as the motive force of nerve impulse
propagation, and contends that biophysics should be every bit as up
to date with physics as chemistry is.
The theoretical explanation presented is embedded in a
discussion of the claims of Ernst Mayr that biology is scientific, and
how certain ideas of Mayr's with regard to the non-existence of
systemic changes are not at all 'scientific' in Mayr's definition of
the term. The paper points out how Mayr's definition of science,
however incorrect and irrelevant it is, is not even measured up to by
his own pronouncements upon the pace of genetic change and the
fossil record which smack more of 'religion' as he defines it.
The paper is 55 pages in length and available on request in the
standard e-mail format which, unfortunately, eliminates italics,
superscripts, underlining, font size changes, etc. as if a manual
typewriter were its source. It is also available in binhexed form by
special request, preserving these embellishments. Respond to
IN%"grokelly at delphi.com"
