Queerer than we can suppose

I found this video from a Richard Dawkins's talk in which he talks about the strangeness of science.

He talks that science is about truth but that our brain is evolved to cope with every day's reality, within the scope of the reality we have to live with. He cites the example that matter is mostly composed of space but we do not perceive it like that since it is more useful for us to perceive it as solid and opaque. He argues that a living being of the size of a neutrino and capable of vision would see matter as mostly empty space only by the nature of the space it inhabits. Similarly, things that look entirely unlikely to us (the existence of life) become inevitable when considering the vast amounts of time and space the universe has been going on compared to the space and time of our human lifetimes.

More shockingly to me he claims that humans are more akin to automata than to agents seeking what they consider positive things and avoiding negative things. The reason being that evolutionarily we rather model fellow humans as people with a purpose than as systems made of components whose design and integration we ignore.

In any case this is an important issue for scientists and philosophers of science: our brains have evolved for certain purposes and with certain biases and that should impose some limitations and constraints in what things we can understand and how we chose to interpret natural phenomena.

Bioinformatics and google

First of all, I am not a bioinformatician. I even thought I had an idea of what is the aim of bioinformatics but after a visit to the group of Nuria Lopez Bigas at the Biomedical Research Parc in Barcelona I realised that the scope of what I thought the field is about was too narrow (they do some nice machine learning and statistical work on disease related genes).

I have seen this video on Google video (only one of these sites that allows the user to download the video for offline use) some time this weekend. It is just a talk by David Vise, the author of a book about Google, to staff at Google Inc. Google is one company that fascinates (and in a sense, worries) me tremendously. As a side note, this blog is posted in one of their servers.

The thing is that at the end of the talk, David mentions the interests of one of Google founders (I think it is Larry Page) on biology. Then I thought (and I am sure that I will be the last of a long list of people) that, wow, that is really a good match: google and bioinformatics. Biology until know was mostly a science in which practitioners collected facts. There is loads of data and little idea of how to make sense of it, asides from evolution and a few other very general ideas. One of the aims of google is precisely to find patterns in the zitabytes of information stored in their servers. I have the feeling that we will see more of Google in that field.

Old Dawkins video on cooperation

I have found this video on google video. It is an old Richard Dawkins BBC TV programme in which he goes through some topics of which I am quite fond and which I personally think have some yet-to-be-explored relevance to cancer research.

The documentary was produced a few years after Dawkins wrote The selfish gene and not long after Robert Axelrod had written The evolution of cooperation. It takes from Axelrod's research on cooperation (whose own take on how this can be observed in cancer has been mentioned in this blog before) to illustrate how cooperation might evolve in an place in which agents (say humans, bacteria or buffaloes) are selfish. The topics are the usual ones in game theory such as prisoners dilemma (how playing if for an undetermined number of times changes what is the best strategy), tragedy of the commons (if everybody is overusing a resource why shouldn't you, and if few people overuse, why shouldn't you since it will make no difference whatsoever?).

The tragedy of the commons seems to me a suitable game to model global warming (why should your country cut on carbon emissions if nobody else does or why should you if everybody does? this seems to apply to most countries but the likes of U.S. and China whose weight is to big to be considered just another player) or cancer (at the end, tumour cells do kill the host and thus themselves).