SenorTibbs
Honestly the question itself seems opaque and intentionally vague to generate surprising results. It's like asking a chemist "What happens to bonds during IR spectroscopy?" and then when they start talking about induced dipoles you say,"WRONG! The bonds stretch!!"
I think they might have been thinking of a conditioned response, but then again you can't classically condition an animal to do something it's not already capable of. It's only the associations that are changed
That being said however, making certain fields more accessible to the populace often comes with the price of a false sense of understanding. You see this a lot in medicine with WedMD, where heuristics that largely ignore the deeper pathophysiology have empowered some to believe they are more knowledgeable than their doctors.
This must be doubly true for the more abstract forms of physics - where any simplified analogy is going to give rise to false notions via extrapolation. I think there has to be some sort of balance between the two
The firing of an action potential, on the other hand, only happens when they become depolarized enough to reach their threshold potential. If they reach the threshold (generally due to ligand-receptor binding) then voltage gated sodium channels open up and the neuron gets flooded with positive charge - this is the electrical impulse that moves down the axon.
To be honest I'm not someone who knows much about about computer science, but in terms of a boolean type operator the closest thing that comes to mind is the threshold potential? It's an all or nothing process, either T or F, and if it's true then an action potential is generated.
That being said, it can be synthesized de novo very easily so long as your cells have enough glucose/fatty acids and enzymes are functioning properly. It's even formed directly by deamination of glutamate. I'm not sure these results would be very transferrable to humans.