Name And Address Supplied wrote:

>snip<
> > JE:- 
> >snip<
> > OFM stands for organism fitness
> > mutualism and OFA for organism
> > fitness altruism. The use of
> > the word "organism" makes it
> > perfectly clear at what level of
> > selection the supposed fitness
> > effect is said to operate. This
> > is very important because
> > Hamilton's argument is based on
> > altruism at the organism level
> > being generated by selfishness
> > at the gene level where all of
> > this has to measured in exactly
> > the same fitness units. Please
> > indicate if you agree or
> > disagree because it is
> > important to ongoing
> > discussion.

> NAS:-
> Right, I think we can agree on this. But just to make sure, would you
> agree that altruism is defined as an organism displaying a trait that
> directly reduces its own direct fitness?

JE:-
Your question (and thus your definition
of altruism) remains ambiguous.

Do the words: "its own" refer to an organism 
centric fitness or the fitness of something else?
If it does refer to an organism centric fitness 
does it refer to:

       (a) the total fitness of one organism?
	 (b) just a sub total fitness of one organism?

Please indicate how your choice is measured
within nature.


IF "its own" does not refer to an organism then
please define what it refers to within the
science of biology.

> > JE:-
> > Please answer the original
> > question and provide the missing
> > logic of how Hamilton's Rule can
> > measure any difference between OFM
> > and OFA when the total fitness of
> > the actor has been deleted from
> > the rule.

> NAS:-
> Difference is provided by the sign of c.

JE:-
I agree that the sign of c  _purports_
to measure this. My argument is that it _cannot_
do so without the total fitness of the actor
included within the rule. Altruism cannot
be differentiated from mutualism via the
sign of c when neither rb or c constitute
a valid fitness TOTAL for the actor. At least 
one of them has to be a total for the sign of 
c not to remain _arbitrary_. Please answer the
following question I have asked previously:

------------- quote ------------------------
JE:-
What is the difference between
a reduced positive c and a negative c?
If c was an abolute measure of fitness
then yes, a real difference exists. However
c is only a relative fitness cost and not
an absolute fitness cost, so what is the
difference?

BOH:-
As far as the rule is concerned, none.

----------- end quote --------------------



> > > > JE:-
> > > > (2) Do you agree that totals, that represent
> > > > constant terms and therefore maximands must
> > > > exist for any idea to be reasonable?
 
> > NAS:-
> > How can a constant be maximised?

> > JE:-
> > By remaining a constant. The maximum
> > speed of light in a vacuum is an
> > example of a maximised constant.
> > Many others exist.

> NAS:- 
> How can a constant do anything other than stay the same? If constants
> are maximands, do you also believe that maximands are constants? If
> so, is fitness a constant? Variation in fitness is crucial for
> evolution.

JE:-
A constant can represent the largest maximum
possible so it _cannot_ increase further. This
is the case of c within ALL physics. However
a fitness constant in biology represents a constant
value for just a SINGLE selectee over a finite time
period. This being the case many DIFFERENT
fitness constants exist within biology where
each oned of them absolutely represents the fitness
of ONE selectee. These must contest within one 
population to produce natural selection between
all selectee's within that population.

> > JE:-
> > Do you agree or disagree that the
> > total fitness of the actor
> > (which is the Darwinian maximand)
> > must remain within Hamilton's Rule,
> > i.e. it cannot be deleted for
> > anybodies convenience?

> NAS:-
> Uh, disagree. It is not deleted for anyone's convenience. It cancels
> out of the analysis for mathematical reasons. It is irrelevant.

JE:-
It is now possible to exactly define the
differences within out respective arguments:

You argue that the total fitness of the actor
is "irrelevant" for Hamilton's rule to become
a rationally valid accounting device that can
distinguish between OFA and OFM but I argue
it constitutes an absolute essential.

Do you agree that these contesting assumptions
can be separated and tested to refutation?

>snip<
> > JE
> > What exactly is being
> > reproduced in your
> > proposed maximand?

> NAS:-
> Listen, that path is going to be difficult going if we don't resolve
> these other issues first. Can't we leave it until later, and get back
> to your proposed maximand. It is, after all, you who is on the soap
> box.

JE:-
Ok. Just as long as you acknowledge that
this question is _required_ to be answered
for your maximand to be testable. Please
acknowledge.


>snip<

> > JE:-
> > You are obviously very hostile to this proposal.
> > In order to turn your hostility into something
> > useful for sbe readers, please outline your
> > rational case against the proposal.

> NAS:- 
> I'm not suggesting it would intrinsically be a waste of time. However,
> I am trying to encourage you and others to integrate more directly
> with the scientific community (i.e. through publishing in less amateur
> peer review forums), unless you feel that your contributions are
> substandard and would not survive the close scrutiny that this
> entails.

JE:-
Here is a "what if" scenario for you to contemplate.
It is based on the rational view that you cannot reason
with the irrational.

IF Hamilton's Rule was not rationally based as I argue
but has become entrenched as Neo Darwinistic dogma
THEN what chance do you think an outsider like myself
would have of getting such a critique published 
in say, "Nature"? My argument is: if only a sub standard 
of peer review must have existed to allow an irrational
rule to become dogma in the fist place then what chance 
has any higher  standard of argument within just a 
substandard peer review context?
 
I will make a deal with you. If I can prove
to you your satisfaction that Hamilton's Rule
remains an irrational way to measure the difference
between OFA and OFM then you must agree to formulate 
a paper on this topic to be presented to nature or
any other mutually agreed publication
in joint names, entirely produced using sbe discussion.
Deal?
 
Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/21/04 9:44:31 PM