When Physiology Whisper: To Brain or Mind?
Mind → what we experience
Brain → where that experience is generated and expressed
Body → the wider physiological system that may influence or initiate the disturbance
We often think of the brain as a storm of thoughts, emotions, memories, and perceptions. But beneath that storm lies something quieter and more elemental: the movement of tiny charged particles called ions.
Sodium, potassium, calcium, and chloride are among the fundamental participants in the electrical language of the nervous system.
Blood itself is slightly alkaline, normally maintaining a pH of about 7.35–7.45. Yet this balance of hydrogen ions is not what makes neurons generate electrical signals.
Neuronal electricity comes from something different: the unequal distribution of ions across the cell membrane.
The sodium–potassium pump continuously uses energy from ATP to move three sodium ions out of the cell and two potassium ions into it. This maintains the ionic gradients that keep the neuron ready to generate an electrical signal.
When a stimulus arrives, ion channels open. Sodium moves into the neuron, the membrane voltage changes, and an action potential is generated. Other ion movements then help restore the membrane toward its resting state.
This is the basic electrical language of the nervous system.
But what happens when this system is disturbed?
Sodium disturbances can alter brain-cell function and, when severe, cause confusion, seizures, and coma.
Potassium disturbances can profoundly alter the electrical activity of muscles and the heart.
Calcium disturbances can alter nerve and muscle excitability.
These are not merely chemical abnormalities. They are disturbances of the electrical physiology of living cells.
And this raises a deeper question.
What happens when the machinery maintaining this system itself becomes abnormal?
The sodium–potassium pump is one of the major systems maintaining neuronal ionic balance. It also requires a continuous supply of cellular energy.
So we can follow a simple physiological chain:
Energy → ion pumps → ion balance → electrical signals → calcium signaling → gene expression → brain function
This is where the question becomes interesting.
Calcium is not only involved in electrical signaling. When calcium enters a neuron, it also acts as an intracellular signal. It can activate signaling pathways that influence transcription and gene expression.
Therefore, electrical activity in a neuron can influence the way genes are expressed.
This means that the relationship between genes and cellular function may not always be one-way.
We commonly think:
Gene → protein → cellular function
But biology can also work in the other direction:
Cellular activity → intracellular signaling → gene expression
And this brings us to epigenetics.
Could ionic disturbances influence gene expression?
If ion channels or pumps become disturbed, neuronal excitability can change.
That can alter calcium signaling.
Altered calcium signaling can influence intracellular pathways and gene regulation.
Persistent changes in cellular activity may, in turn, influence epigenetic regulation.
So it is reasonable to ask whether a disturbance in ionic regulation could contribute to changes in gene expression that become relevant to brain function and mental disorders.
This is not the same as saying that ion-pump dysfunction has already been proven to cause bipolar disorder or schizophrenia.
Research has already found associations between psychiatric disorders and genes involved in neuronal excitability and ion-channel function. Examples include CACNA1C and ANK3 in bipolar disorder, while calcium-channel and other excitability-related genes have also been implicated in schizophrenia.
These findings tell us that the electrical machinery of neurons deserves attention.
But they do not tell us the entire story.
The question is not whether one mechanism explains everything
Mental disorders are complex. Genetics, metabolism, synaptic function, intracellular signaling, neuronal networks, development, and environmental influences can all interact.
Therefore, I do not see ion pumps and ion channels as an alternative to neurotransmitters, genetics, or other explanations.
They may be part of the same system.
An ion channel influences electrical activity.
Electrical activity influences calcium signaling.
Calcium signaling influences intracellular pathways.
Those pathways can influence gene expression.
Gene expression determines which proteins the cell produces and how it functions.
The system therefore contains feedback.
Genes influence the cell, and the state of the cell can influence gene expression.
That is an important idea when studying complex biological disorders.
What is established and what remains to be discovered?
This distinction matters.
We already know that ion pumps maintain ionic gradients.
We know that ion channels regulate electrical activity.
We know that calcium is an intracellular signaling molecule.
We know that neuronal activity can influence gene expression.
We know that epigenetic mechanisms regulate gene expression.
And we know that abnormalities involving neuronal excitability and ion channels are associated with psychiatric disorders.
What is not yet established is the complete causal pathway linking a primary disturbance of ionic regulation to the development and persistence of a particular mental disorder.
But not established does not mean absent.
A mechanism may be unknown, understudied, or simply not yet adequately tested.
This is not skepticism toward science. It is an approach to studying science.
I do not believe that an unexplained mechanism should automatically be accepted.
Nor do I believe that it should automatically be rejected because it has not yet been established.
The appropriate response is to ask:
Can it be demonstrated?
If disturbed ionic regulation changes neuronal signaling, does it also change gene expression?
Does it produce measurable epigenetic changes?
Do those changes alter neuronal function?
And if the original disturbance is corrected, do the abnormalities move back toward normal?
These are testable questions.
From possibility to evidence
The Wright brothers did not prove that humans could fly by simply believing in the possibility.
They built, tested, failed, modified, and tested again.
Eventually, the possibility became demonstrated fact.
Biological hypotheses require the same discipline.
A plausible mechanism should not be called a proven mechanism.
But neither should an unexplored possibility be treated as though it does not exist.
The purpose of scientific thinking is to follow what is already known far enough to discover what remains unknown.
Perhaps the disturbance begins with genetics.
Perhaps with metabolism.
Perhaps with ionic regulation.
Perhaps several small disturbances interact and eventually push a complex neural system beyond its normal range.
We do not yet know the complete answer.
But the question is worth asking.
Because beneath the thoughts, emotions, perceptions, and behaviour of the brain lies a remarkable physical system of energy, ions, electrical signals, chemical messengers, and gene regulation.
The ions are already there. The signals are already occurring. The biology is already speaking.
Our task is to understand its language.
And perhaps, in that language, lies not only a better understanding of disease, but eventually a better understanding of how disturbed brain function can be brought back toward normal.