It's not any different from the nervous system, really, it's just that we're now recognizing that those fields are involved in things other than sensation, perception, etc..

>>The bioelectric network is itself an expression of the genes involved in development.

Yes, you may need genes to express the proteins of ion channels and gap junctions, but there is no anatomy coded by genes, no genes code for how many limbs will a biosystem have (as reiterated by Levin). And it is this level of resolution that actually mattered for years before the launch of molecular biology and medicine.

>>It’s not a separate magical force.

Indeed, it sort of (suppose - by up to 70%) is. If the fine structure constant, which defines the strength of the interaction between a charge and an electric field, were 4% less or more than its current value, the current world and biosphere wouldn't exist. So far physics can't explain why the fine structure constant has this exact value (~1/137, which is also unique that it is a dimenionless constant). (I'm not inferring anything, just presenting raw data).

> but there is no anatomy coded by genes, no genes code for how many limbs will a biosystem have (as reiterated by Levin)

What's this supposed to mean? We are already able to develop bugs with missing or additional limbs by modifying their genes.

At least in a specific experimental context and with specific animal models. When they mixed the embryos of a frog and an axolotl, there were no genes in their genome which could predict whether a "frogolotl" will have legs.

> When they mixed the embryos of a frog and an axolotl, there were no genes in their genome which could predict whether a "frogolotl" will have legs.

You do realize this is untrue?

That's been reiterated by Levin at almost every presentation. Maybe he's overgeneralizing or there's actually a lack of specific experimental context or reference to a specific study. Maybe "anatomy" is a bit too broad of a term, and the thing inferred is some overall macroscopic patterning, so can't say definitely "untrue", as I haven't yet dedicated time to delve into specific articles and been just consuming lectures/presentations.

But I remember he was mentioning some study in left/right asymmetry in DevBio, where they've shown that it's cell potentials/bioelectric signalling and not genes that determine the left/right asymmetry in embryos.

> where they've shown that it's cell potentials/bioelectric signalling and not genes that determine the left/right asymmetry in embryos.

No, they've shown that electric signaling is how the genes determine the left/right asymmetry in embryos.

How do you think it is that the same thing happens so consistently every time a new organism develops? Where do you think the electric gradients come from?