Thinking About the Nerve Impulse: The Prospects for the Development of a Comprehensive Account of Nerve Impulse Propagation.

Currently, a scientific debate is ongoing about modeling nerve impulse propagation. One of the models discussed is the celebrated Hodgkin-Huxley model of the action potential, which is central to the electricity-centered conception of the nerve impulse that dominates contemporary neuroscience. However, this model cannot represent the nerve impulse completely, since it does not take into account non-electrical manifestations of the nerve impulse for which there is ample experimental evidence. As a result, alternative models of nerve impulse propagation have been proposed in contemporary (neuro)scientific literature. One of these models is the Heimburg-Jackson model, according to which the nerve impulse is an electromechanical density pulse in the neural membrane. This model is usually contrasted with the Hodgkin-Huxley model and is supposed to potentially be able to replace the latter. However, instead of contrasting these models of nerve impulse propagation, another approach integrates these models in a general unifying model. This general unifying model, the Engelbrecht model, is developed to unify all relevant manifestations of the nerve impulse and their interaction(s). Here, we want to contribute to the debate about modeling nerve impulse propagation by conceptually analyzing the Engelbrecht model. Combining the results of this conceptual analysis with insights from philosophy of science, we make recommendations for the study of nerve impulse propagation. The first conclusion of this analysis is that attempts to develop models that represent the nerve impulse accurately and completely appear unfeasible. Instead, models are and should be used as tools to study nerve impulse propagation for varying purposes, representing the nerve impulse accurately and completely enough to achieve the specified goals. The second conclusion is that integrating distinct models into a general unifying model that provides a consistent picture of nerve impulse propagation is impossible due to the distinct purposes for which they are developed and the conflicting assumptions these purposes often require. Instead of explaining nerve impulse propagation with a single general unifying model, it appears advisable to explain this complex phenomenon using a 'mosaic' framework of models in which each model provides a partial explanation of nerve impulse propagation.

Thinking about the nerve impulse: A critical analysis of the electricity-centered conception of nerve excitability.

Nerve impulse generation and propagation are often thought of as solely electrical events. The prevalence of this view is the result of long and intense study of nerve impulses in electrophysiology culminating in the introduction of the Hodgkin-Huxley model of the action potential in the 1950s. To this day, this model forms the physiological foundation for a broad area of neuroscientific research. However, the Hodgkin-Huxley model cannot account for non-electrical phenomena that accompany nerve impulse propagation, for which there is nevertheless ample evidence. This raises the question whether the Hodgkin-Huxley model is a complete model of the nerve impulse. Several alternative models have been proposed that do take into account non-electrical aspects of the nerve impulse and emphasize their importance in gaining a more complete understanding of the nature of the nerve impulse. In our opinion, these models deserve more attention in neuroscientific research, since, together with the Hodgkin-Huxley model, they will help in addressing and solving a number of questions in basic and applied neuroscience which thus far have remained outside our grasp. Here we provide a historico-scientific overview of the developments that have led to the current conception of the action potential as an electrical phenomenon, discuss some major objections against this conception, and suggest a number of scientific factors which have likely contributed to the enduring success of the Hodgkin-Huxley model and should be taken into consideration whilst contemplating the formulation of a more extensive and complete conception of the nerve impulse.

Interpreting theories without a spacetime.

In this paper we have two aims: first, to draw attention to the close connexion between interpretation and scientific understanding; second, to give a detailed account of how theories without a spacetime can be interpreted, and so of how they can be understood. In order to do so, we of course need an account of what is meant by a theory 'without a spacetime': which we also provide in this paper. We describe three tools, used by physicists, aimed at constructing interpretations which are adequate for the goal of understanding. We analyse examples from high-energy physics illustrating how physicists use these tools to construct interpretations and thereby attain understanding. The examples are: the 't Hooft approximation of gauge theories, random matrix models, causal sets, loop quantum gravity, and group field theory.