I have so many big and existential questions in my head, that fill my thoughts with imaginative joy and curiosity. What are the molecular mechanisms that allow cyanobacteria to release electrons? What is the nature of these electrons…are they like waves emitted by the cells or perhaps they are trapped in reduced compounds and then further oxidised at an electrode? Why did bacteria evolve the ability of producing electricity in the first place? What is the advantage? Cam bacteria talk to each other via electrical signals, like our electronics devices? However, these questions are difficult to answer. They are untestable. How can I test the finality of an adaptive mechanism evolved after years of random natural selection? How can I see if an electron is a wave or a particle if the moment I look at it I change its essence? This is perhaps what I find the challenge about scientific research: translating untestable fundamental questions into falsifiable statements that I can prove or disprove with experiments in the lab. I think that my mind is very good at generating ideas, finding possible solutions and speculating hypothesis, however it less prone to then compute the detailed constrains and dive into the nitty gritty. Only after periods of very specific study and having considered the most technical factors, I can then think practically and -at least attempt to- formulate testable answers. It is a very alienating process, as it forces the brain to think less like a human and more like a computer. Nonetheless this does not take away the creative/metaphysical inclination of the brain and of human nature. In fact, by defining the epistemological borders, the scientific way nourishes new thoughts and metaphysical ways to overcome those limits. And the formalisation of those ideas and falsifiability test has to be completed again. A new cycle begins. And this is the beauty of this process. A continuous enrichment of the brain, and -entangled with it- the soul.