Latest / Tracking Wisdom / Exploring the Intersection of Nanophysics and Consciousness

Transcript

Exploring the Intersection of Nanophysics and Consciousness · Tracking Wisdom

• 0:03
  Peter: You're listening to the Tracking Wisdom Podcast, exploring the universal truths that we see woven through culture, consciousness, and the human experience.
• 0:17
  Ryan: Good morning everybody, and welcome back to another episode of the Tracking Wisdom Podcast.
• 0:22
  Ryan: I'm Ryan,
• 0:23
  Peter: I'm Peter,
• 0:24
  Ryan: and today I wanted to talk about Dr.
• 0:26
  Ryan: Anita Goel.
• 0:27
  Ryan: So this is a physicist and MD that we came across in yet another Essentia Foundation interview.
• 0:36
  Ryan: Dr.
• 0:36
  Ryan: Anita Goel, MD PhD, she's a physicist and world renowned expert and pioneering in the emerging field of nano physics.
• 0:45
  Ryan: And she is a physicist by training and has been enamored or, inspired by, nano machinery, nanotechnology and in particular she has a focus on DNA transcription and DNA polymerase as a nano machine, and has some theories around how
• 1:09
  Ryan: it might be interacting with quantum mechanics and how using the biological system, the living systems, which in are inherently open versus the classical physics and the work that's been done historically on closed systems, how studying that may help
• 1:33
  Ryan: us make strides in closing the gap that Einstein, Schrodinger Penrose and the like have all acknowledged that there's something missing, something not quite complete about our understanding of quantum mechanics.
• 1:48
  Ryan: And she has a, a theory that studying this understanding, not only the nanotechnology itself, but essentially if her theories are proven to be, sound, that we could use that as a quantum sensor That we could use biological systems
• 2:09
  Ryan: and their interaction with the quantum field quantum mechanics to detect those interactions and further our understanding of quantum mechanics.
• 2:20
  Ryan: Is that a fair way of
• 2:22
  Peter: Yeah, I think that the point of the idea of the quantum detector is that the system, so the D.N.A./D.N.A.
• 2:31
  Peter: polymerase experimental system, can be developed into, technology that can be used to create the equivalent of a double slit experiment
• 2:41
  Ryan: Right.
• 2:41
  Peter: So, as you were saying, you know, she points out that, quantum theory is incomplete, and a way of reducing the incompleteness is to turn away from inanimate closed systems and start to look at living systems, because it'll just
• 2:57
  Peter: give us a different view.
• 2:58
  Peter: I mean, everything that we know is from experimentalists.
• 3:03
  Peter: Well, I mean, not just experimentalists theorists too, right?
• 3:07
  Peter: Mm-hmm.
• 3:07
  Peter: Ignoring living systems, because living systems are too messy.
• 3:11
  Peter: And, because of her work in Nanosystems and her ability to manipulate living systems and make them tractable to experimentation, she's like, oh no, they're not too messy.
• 3:22
  Peter: And I think part of her.
• 3:23
  Peter: Thing too is that the apparent messiness, may have to do with the intrinsic involvement of quantum effects.
• 3:33
  Ryan: Hmm.
• 3:33
  Peter: She says some clearer things about quantum effects and living systems, which are really interesting, but, the big goal, at least that they're talking about in this conversation, is to create something like the double slit experiment.
• 3:48
  Peter: Something that clearly demonstrates the properties of quantum physics, but using a completely new kind of experimental setup.
• 3:58
  Peter: And it's not to duplicate the, mm-hmm.
• 4:00
  Peter: Double slit, but an experiment that has the impact of the double split experiment and that it's a very clear demonstration of, well the double split experiment demonstrates the kind of dual nature of light as wave and particle at
• 4:15
  Peter: the same time.
• 4:16
  Peter: The double slit experiment demonstrates ensemble behavior.
• 4:20
  Ryan: Mm-hmm.
• 4:20
  Peter: And so, she's looking for a kind of experiment to do in a biological system, specifically her nanotech setup with DNA and DNA polymerase, and she says that the roadmap is there, needs a lot more resource to refine the
• 4:39
  Peter: resolution of the system,
• 4:41
  Ryan: mm-hmm,
• 4:42
  Peter: in order to set up the correct kind of experiment.
• 4:45
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 4:45
  Peter: And then goes far field later on into her own kind of intuitive understanding of the nature of, I guess reality and consciousness.
• 4:54
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 4:54
  Peter: To some extent.
• 4:55
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 4:56
  Ryan: And one thing that I did find interesting is how, number one, she presented the idealist paradigm, but, as we had mentioned in previous episodes, it seems that the scientists that we've come in contact with that are on the
• 5:15
  Ryan: idealist side of the conversation, all appear to have had a precipitating experiential event, that then led them to use their scientific skills and knowledge to pursue this avenue.
• 5:31
  Ryan: And she, from all accounts that we can tell, is the first one that I can recall that came to this purely scientifically.
• 5:40
  Peter: Intellectually.
• 5:41
  Ryan: Intellectually and theoretically, that we keep bumping up against walls with the classical approach and the materialist paradigm, specifically around the quantum measurement problem and the hard problem of consciousness that by flipping that on its head and starting with
• 6:00
  Ryan: the consciousness first paradigm, these things become more readily answerable.
• 6:06
  Ryan: But she's very adamant about using rigorous.
• 6:10
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 6:10
  Ryan: scientific approach and data.
• 6:13
  Ryan: And she has a very high bar for her research.
• 6:16
  Ryan: She was saying she has high hopes for it, but she's also her highest critic where she's, very, stringent on making sure that the output of this research is rigorous.
• 6:27
  Ryan: And that, it also encompasses and answers all the classical things that we already know.
• 6:34
  Ryan: That all has to be part of what comes out of the experiment and the theory.
• 6:38
  Ryan: She's particularly interested in the medicine side of things.
• 6:42
  Ryan: We've all benefited from, utility of quantum mechanics with the smartphones and things like that, quantum computing.
• 6:50
  Peter: In terms of healthcare, CAT scans, MRIs, x-rays.
• 6:54
  Ryan: Sure.
• 6:54
  Ryan: Right.
• 6:54
  Peter: Those are, yeah.
• 6:55
  Ryan: And, she made a very specific comment that medicine is essentially still stuck in the biochemical.
• 7:04
  Peter: So yeah, I mean it's this kind of roadblock of knowledge or dead end that we've hit just I think in knowledge in general.
• 7:12
  Ryan: Right.
• 7:13
  Peter: There's a lot of discussion about how, as you said, the founders of quantum mechanics were very frustrated with the incompleteness of the theory.
• 7:21
  Peter: Which is what Schrodinger's cat is, is a satirizing and exaggeration of the problems of the theory, the shortcoming of the theory.
• 7:30
  Peter: And that, it's not just physics that hit that roadblock.
• 7:35
  Ryan: Right.
• 7:35
  Peter: Like all the other disciplines, like medicine is limited because essentially medicine is completely dependent on chemistry and physics.
• 7:44
  Ryan: Right.
• 7:44
  Peter: You know, she was a physician who decided to become a physicist.
• 7:48
  Peter: And her vision is that by breaking through this roadblock in physics, we can open huge horizons in, in medicine, healthcare, and, and beyond.
• 7:59
  Ryan: Right.
• 7:59
  Peter: Because of course, every time you crack the limitations of physics, you open up incredible new technologies.
• 8:07
  Peter: So yeah, she's a very, I think, what's the word?
• 8:10
  Peter: Free thinker?
• 8:12
  Peter: Like visionary.
• 8:13
  Ryan: Mm-hmm.
• 8:13
  Peter: Very visionary, but, also very, very committed to grounding herself.
• 8:19
  Peter: And she's like, I have to play like a child and dream big and then constrain myself to what can we measure.
• 8:26
  Ryan: Right.
• 8:26
  Peter: And how can I figure out how to measure it?
• 8:28
  Peter: And she just goes back and forth between these, these states.
• 8:32
  Peter: Which kind of reminds me of Hoffman.
• 8:35
  Ryan: Mm-hmm.
• 8:36
  Peter: Talking about meditating,
• 8:37
  Ryan: yeah,
• 8:37
  Peter: and then doing science.
• 8:38
  Ryan: Right.
• 8:38
  Peter: Right?
• 8:38
  Peter: And swinging between those states.
• 8:40
  Peter: So you already mentioned, open versus closed systems.
• 8:43
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 8:44
  Peter: Physical experimental systems being inanimate and closed and being at or near equilibrium, as she says.
• 8:52
  Peter: And then living systems are open systems that are, never very near equilibrium.
• 8:57
  Peter: They're constantly building.
• 8:59
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 8:59
  Peter: She uses the term negentropic, which I just thought was great.
• 9:03
  Peter: And she talks about current physics and future physics, current physics being matter and energy and future physics adding information into the equation, that's her vision is to break through.
• 9:17
  Peter: And her intention is to refine this nanotech biological system that she works with, to sufficient resolution to perform this experiment; we don't know what it would be, that will crack the barrier
• 9:34
  Ryan: mm-hmm
• 9:35
  Peter: of quantum physics.
• 9:36
  Ryan: So she, specifically about the DNA polymerase, is enamored by both the energy efficiency of the molecule, and its processing volume and speed.
• 9:50
  Ryan: She speaks to how the DNA polymerase as it's transcribing and building does a hundred billion computational steps per 10 milliseconds.
• 10:01
  Ryan: And will be able to error correct itself when there's mutations.
• 10:06
  Ryan: She does talk a little bit about whether those mutations are random versus environmental or quantum, and this is part of where she's going with this is to determine if there is a consequential quantum and environmental element that's where
• 10:21
  Ryan: information comes in, versus something that's Darwinian and is random.
• 10:27
  Peter: So you were starting to say that she's interested in the polymerase as a machine, as an nano machine.
• 10:32
  Ryan: Right.
• 10:33
  Peter: And she suspects that the way DNA polymerase works, may be exploiting quantum effects, in a non-trivial way, for function and efficiency.
• 10:42
  Peter: So you named the function of calculate a hundred billion steps per base pair.
• 10:49
  Peter: So each time the polymerase reads a base of DNA, it needs to perform a hundred billion computational steps in order to find the correct base to attach to the base that it wants to connect, to build the matching
• 11:06
  Peter: strand.
• 11:06
  Peter: But the other piece of it is that, the polymerase is also acting as a molecular motor, because it's moving mechanically along the DNA strand.
• 11:15
  Peter: And as a molecular motor, it's 99.9% efficient.
• 11:20
  Peter: And she says that, compared to 20 to 40% for an internal combustion engine.
• 11:26
  Ryan: Right.
• 11:26
  Peter: That these two extraordinary features of the nano machine suggest to her that something strange is going on,
• 11:36
  Ryan: right,
• 11:36
  Peter: that's beyond the purview of just regular physics.
• 11:40
  Peter: And so she suspects that there are quantum effects happening, or that the polymerase is exploiting quantum effects in some ways, to give itself these superpowers.
• 11:51
  Ryan: And I think that those are both indicators, and potential uses.
• 11:56
  Ryan: Right?
• 11:56
  Ryan: If we understand better how it manages to achieve a 99.9% energy efficiency, that that could help us in the material world to achieve better efficiencies in energy usage.
• 12:12
  Ryan: And then she did say specifically, the non-trivial quantum effects is the question that starts the whole thing.
• 12:21
  Ryan: The effects of the quantum collapse, and the coherence, historically has been dismissed as trivial to the biological system.
• 12:31
  Ryan: Her first step in pursuing this theory is to determine does the collapse happen before the end of the computational phase, or after.
• 12:43
  Ryan: So if it extends long enough, then we can interpret that there is a potential for non-trivial impact of quantum mechanics, versus if it happens so fast that it would be trivial.
• 12:58
  Peter: So does quantum ness or superposition exist in this system, of DNA and polymerase,
• 13:06
  Ryan: long enough
• 13:06
  Peter: long enough to be relevant to, basically for the time needed to read a base pair,
• 13:13
  Ryan: right.
• 13:13
  Peter: Which, as you said, is 10 milliseconds.
• 13:15
  Peter: So she has a specific timeframe for which she needs to demonstrate the sustained coherence of a quantum state.
• 13:23
  Ryan: Yes.
• 13:24
  Peter: I get that there's a thing called superposition, which means you are two things at the same time.
• 13:29
  Peter: If you're a cat, you're alive and dead at the same time, if you're a photon, you're a wave and a particle at the same time, and then at some point that superposition collapses or that quantum coherence has a
• 13:43
  Peter: decoherence.
• 13:44
  Ryan: Mm-hmm.
• 13:46
  Peter: And when that happens, now you've gone from an indeterminate state of being both things to the determinate state of being a single thing.
• 13:55
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 13:55
  Peter: Okay, now here's the question.
• 13:57
  Peter: Is the coherence very short or very long Because, I read somewhere that the reason that we can see photons collapse is because there are so many of them that the odds of some collapsing at any given time are,
• 14:14
  Peter: are high.
• 14:15
  Peter: But that the the timeframe of decoherence is extremely long.
• 14:20
  Ryan: Mm.
• 14:20
  Peter: Like thousands or millions of years.
• 14:22
  Peter: And the, the only reason that we see the decoherence is because of these huge numbers of events that we're we're considering.
• 14:29
  Peter: On the other hand, I thought I understood that superposition only happens for infinitesimally small amounts of time before collapse.
• 14:39
  Peter: And then Penrose says it's all about, okay, now we're in the measurement problem because we're saying, oh, it's not about the time, it's about whether there's an observer or not, because the observer is what creates the collapse.
• 14:53
  Peter: And Penrose says, no, it's not about an observer, that's garbage, gravity is what creates the collapse.
• 14:59
  Peter: And i'm not even sure how that happens, because does,
• 15:01
  Ryan: well I think he was, he was talking about how Mass had impact on the
• 15:06
  Peter: so the mass of the thing allows you to calculate how long the coherence will be.
• 15:11
  Ryan: That's what he said.
• 15:12
  Peter: Right.
• 15:13
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 15:13
  Peter: So is he saying it's very short because photons
• 15:17
  Ryan: are small.
• 15:17
  Peter: Are small so they have very low
• 15:20
  Ryan: or is it the other way around?
• 15:20
  Peter: Gravitational effects, so therefore they immediately collapse.
• 15:24
  Ryan: Think it's the other way
• 15:25
  Peter: so if you're a planet
• 15:26
  Ryan: saying if, if it's big, it collapses quickly,
• 15:29
  Peter: immediately, right?
• 15:30
  Peter: If you're a planet, you're just a planet, you're not like two kinds of planet, you're not, you're not dead and alive at the same time.
• 15:35
  Peter: But if you're a tiny photon, you maintain your
• 15:38
  Ryan: quantum state for a long period of time,
• 15:40
  Peter: for a long period of time.
• 15:41
  Ryan: I think that's what he was saying.
• 15:43
  Peter: Right, so what she's saying is that the quantum state of the DNA polymerase, DNA and polymerase complex has to be long enough, has to be at least 10 milliseconds.
• 15:58
  Peter: If she can demonstrate that, then she knows, okay, that's a relevant
• 16:03
  Ryan: right
• 16:03
  Peter: timeframe.
• 16:04
  Peter: For what we're looking at.
• 16:05
  Peter: So we can use this for a quantum experiment,
• 16:08
  Ryan: it at least says that there's.
• 16:10
  Ryan: Potential for meaningful impact.
• 16:12
  Peter: Meaningful interaction.
• 16:13
  Ryan: Right.
• 16:14
  Peter: Because if it was shorter than that, then there's no way the quantum effect could be impacting the reading of the base pair.
• 16:21
  Ryan: Right.
• 16:21
  Peter: She cites some other examples where, so this is leading edge technology, experimentalism, or whatever, that it's not, it's very controversial.
• 16:31
  Ryan: Mm-hmm.
• 16:31
  Peter: Still, but there are couple of studies suggesting, the presence of non-trivial quantum effects in living systems.
• 16:41
  Peter: And she says there's some studies in bird navigation, I believe it's bird navigation, and in photosynthesis, which we haven't looked up with this.
• 16:49
  Peter: But she does indicate that, she's not the only one looking at quantum effects in living systems.
• 16:56
  Peter: But it, it sounds like she's the one who's most committed to creating the definitive experiment.
• 17:03
  Ryan: Right.
• 17:03
  Peter: And she feels like she has a system that she's working with that she can continue to refine in order to accomplish that.
• 17:10
  Ryan: Right, she has the roadmap.
• 17:13
  Ryan: She seems to understand what needs to happen, but that the tools and measurements, still need resolution improvement in order to get to what she needs.
• 17:24
  Ryan: And she cited resource as a main component of that of course.
• 17:28
  Ryan: And so she didn't talk specifically about consciousness, except really at two places.
• 17:33
  Ryan: At the beginning when she was describing the idealist paradigm, and suggesting consciousness first and everything else comes out of that.
• 17:41
  Ryan: But then at the end, she went through her theory and what her intent for her experiments and pursuit is, and then started to describe what she was calling the fifth industrial revolution driven around AI, which is obviously continuing
• 17:58
  Ryan: to develop, got into taking off her scientific hat and putting on her humanity hat that, as we start to grapple with will the electronic systems become conscious, what is the definition of consciousness?
• 18:14
  Ryan: The pursuit of understanding consciousness has been there for a long time.
• 18:20
  Ryan: It's the hard question that periodically I think we poke at, but hasn't had the urgency, until now, where we have now a compelling reason to have to, really understand and define what is consciousness, what defines consciousness.
• 18:38
  Ryan: And beyond that, if we take the materialist paradigm to its natural conclusion, if fact, the machines take over human activity, where is the purpose, right?
• 18:53
  Ryan: What, where do we find the value and purpose in life?
• 18:57
  Ryan: And that the materialist paradigm sort of shuts it down is basically
• 19:04
  Peter: right
• 19:04
  Ryan: being end.
• 19:05
  Peter: Right.
• 19:05
  Peter: And we heard this from Faggin as well.
• 19:07
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 19:07
  Peter: That if you adhere to the materials paradigm, which is what is creating AI,
• 19:14
  Ryan: right,
• 19:14
  Peter: you maintain this mechanistic perspective until the mechanisms exceed the capabilities of humans.
• 19:20
  Peter: And now the mechanisms have more value than humans.
• 19:23
  Peter: And now humanity has destroyed itself because it's created machines that have more value than their creators.
• 19:31
  Ryan: Right.
• 19:31
  Peter: And so, that fact of obvious conclusion, compels us to shift our understanding of consciousness.
• 19:39
  Peter: And not to just change your minds, but to really understand, to really answer the question as, you're saying.
• 19:46
  Peter: So there's this very dystopian, gloomy message there, but at the same time, the converse is, and this is also I think something that's we've heard consistently from people exploring these kinds of ideas, that freeing ourselves from the materialist
• 20:02
  Peter: paradigm will open infinite horizons, and usher in a golden age of combined spiritualism and technology.
• 20:11
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 20:12
  Peter: And that's something that she talks pretty strongly about is, we're really past the point where we can talk about oh, it's just technology, or, oh, it's just spiritualism.
• 20:23
  Peter: She points out that there's thousands of years of, what I'm going call non-material technology, spiritual cultures and systems and, and disciplines, that are focused on the non-material aspect of reality.
• 20:38
  Peter: But that they generally come at the expense of material progress.
• 20:44
  Peter: And I think this is maybe a trivial illustration?
• 20:47
  Peter: I don't know if it's a good illustration.
• 20:48
  Peter: But the apparent material dominance of the West over the East, where these spiritual traditions are stronger and more developed.
• 20:59
  Peter: And she also mentions indigenous peoples.
• 21:02
  Ryan: Mm-hmm.
• 21:02
  Peter: So there's another example of like, yeah, I think you can point to pretty poor material success in those cultures, even though there may be exceptional spiritual success.
• 21:13
  Ryan: Right.
• 21:13
  Peter: And that we shouldn't be having either or.
• 21:17
  Ryan: Mm-hmm.
• 21:18
  Peter: You know, we shouldn't be materially supreme and wealthy and have amazing technology, and chronically depressed and anxious and troubled,
• 21:27
  Ryan: right,
• 21:28
  Peter: and sleepless.
• 21:28
  Peter: And that it's now is the time to understand the relationship of the material and the non-material.
• 21:37
  Ryan: Mm-hmm.
• 21:38
  Peter: And I, I was gonna say exploit, which is not the right term...
• 21:42
  Peter: leverage the understanding of both, to create this abundance and harmony.
• 21:48
  Ryan: Yeah, I mean that, that has been a consistent message amongst, I don't know if it's been explicit with all the thinkers we've been exploring here, but definitely I know this one, and I think others have described it as
• 22:03
  Ryan: well, which is, the the historical mystical philosophy has been, there's an interconnectedness with all things.
• 22:11
  Ryan: And the historical materialist perspective has been compartmentalizing everything.
• 22:17
  Ryan: And I think it sounds like the idealist philosophy has an expected outcome that, if proven, the widespread awareness and understanding of our interconnectedness with each other, and the planet, and all things will lead to better ethics, geopolitical and
• 22:39
  Ryan: business practices, that by and large society will be constructive.
• 22:45
  Peter: Yeah.
• 22:46
  Peter: I mean, it will transform our concept of values,
• 22:50
  Ryan: right?
• 22:50
  Peter: Values and value.
• 22:52
  Ryan: Mm-hmm.
• 22:52
  Peter: I think the, the current Western industrial idea is that more is better.
• 22:59
  Peter: That, I can and have, more than you.
• 23:01
  Peter: And if I have more than you, then I am more valuable than you.
• 23:06
  Peter: I think the rise of dystopian fiction is kind of an exploration of that.
• 23:11
  Peter: You know, I, because I think dystopian fiction is all about the devaluation of the human.
• 23:17
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 23:17
  Peter: And tends to be about the accumulation of power amongst the few.
• 23:24
  Ryan: Mm-hmm.
• 23:24
  Peter: And the division of haves and have-nots and, you know, some few people at the top on the island are in the sky or on the special planet or whatever.
• 23:34
  Peter: And the protagonists being the undervalued, struggling people without resource.
• 23:40
  Peter: Um, and that with a real understanding of both the nature of consciousness and the nature of reality, which will go together.
• 23:50
  Ryan: Mm-hmm.
• 23:50
  Peter: If we understand the nature of consciousness, then we will understand the nature of reality.
• 23:54
  Peter: And once we have that understanding, this idea of have and have not won't make any sense.
• 24:01
  Peter: And I think when that shift happens, where it becomes viewed as scientifically proven.
• 24:09
  Ryan: Right?
• 24:10
  Peter: Right.
• 24:10
  Peter: It, it has the imprimatur of, oh, the scientists have shown this.
• 24:15
  Peter: Then human culture will be able to shift back to this harmonious, kind of back to the garden, really.
• 24:24
  Peter: Right?
• 24:24
  Peter: So going way back to Joseph Campbell and the garden, we lost the garden because of an idea.
• 24:29
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 24:29
  Peter: Or knowledge.
• 24:30
  Peter: But I mean, basically it's a way of thinking.
• 24:33
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 24:33
  Peter: That I think it's pretty trivial to hypothesize that that's talking about materialist paradigm.
• 24:40
  Ryan: Mm-hmm.
• 24:40
  Peter: Once you start thinking that I know I need clothes.
• 24:44
  Peter: Clothes are important.
• 24:46
  Peter: Everything to get clothes and, you know, everything I do.
• 24:49
  Peter: And God's not important.
• 24:50
  Ryan: Mm-hmm.
• 24:51
  Peter: It's the fact that I'm naked, that's important.
• 24:53
  Peter: That now you've lost, you've lost security, you've lost happiness.
• 25:02
  Peter: And the consistent message from these thinkers that we're trying to listen to and read is that there's a very real possibility that, by pursuing science in the right way, we can actually bring humanity from the brink of dystopia,
• 25:20
  Peter: to this golden age, return to to harmony.
• 25:25
  Peter: Which is a very compelling idea, a very compelling idea being put forward by people who seem not to be crackpots on the street corner.
• 25:34
  Ryan: Right.
• 25:34
  Peter: I mean, people are seriously pursuing this.
• 25:37
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 25:37
  Ryan: Using the scientific method.
• 25:38
  Peter: Mm-hmm.
• 25:39
  Ryan: Well, I found this speaker quite interesting to listen to, and I was inspired that there is a place in the institution of science to come to this intellectually and scientifically.
• 25:54
  Ryan: Not just from people who have had experiences, but that there's a growing understanding that the materialist paradigm is limiting us, and it's time to start expanding our concept and considering an alternate view of how this all comes together.
• 26:14
  Ryan: I would definitely encourage everybody to watch the interview.
• 26:17
  Ryan: I found it interesting, even if you're not super scientifically inclined, it was interesting.
• 26:23
  Ryan: So we'll link that and the Essentia Foundation.
• 26:26
  Ryan: There's other links to nanobiosym.com, that is Dr.
• 26:31
  Ryan: Goel's company, and also the link to her plenary discussion, so you could see both the interview and her plenary presentation at the symposium; and if you watch it, let us know what you think of it.
• 26:48
  Ryan: Till next time, talk to you later.
• 26:50
  Peter: Great.
• 26:50
  Peter: Thanks.
• 26:51
  Peter: Bye.
• 26:53
  Peter: Thank you for listening to the Tracking Wisdom podcast.
• 26:56
  Peter: Join us next time as we continue the discussion.
• 26:59
  Peter: Don't forget to follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, and visit www.eth-studio.com for more information and content