"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> I have composed the following form as 
> a required declaration of meaning for an 
> sbe meaningful discussion of a model or 
> theory applied to fictitious or real data. 
> 
> I have filled the form in with my own answers. 
> In this case the form outlines Hamiltonian 
> questions. However its generality is not 
> confined to this model. I request all
> participants to fill it in with their
> own answers and return it for public
> display ASAP. The form comprises two 
> parts.  The first part deals with three
> basic principles. The rest of the form is
> comprised of seven questions. The answers
> anybody provides remains their own business.
> 
> This form or something like it has become
> a necessity because of major misunderstandings
> and misreading by participants within sbe debate.
> Unless we all lay our cards on the table we
> are just wasting each others time. I am happy
> to make any reasonable  adjustments to the form 
> that may be requested. Please note: The
> answers given in this form can be criticised
> OUTSIDE of the form but not WITHIN THE FORM.
> This last point is critical because the form
> is just a declaration of meaning and not a thesis.
> I have attached two notes to clarify my
> answers. Please make sure that added notes 
> are easily understood to be such within the
> form.
> 
> ______________________start of Form ______________________
> I declare the following as a true statement
> of meaning for all ongoing discussion.
> If I change any declared meaning that appears
> within this declaration I will explicitly acknowledge
> that this point of meaning I have provided may have been 
> refuted where refutation can be proven via either,
> logical invalidity or a confirmed point of refutation.
> 
> Name: 	

---

> Address: 	

---
		
> DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES:
> A) What is the purpose 
> of processing only fictitious data?
 
Illustrative purposes?
 
> B) What is the purpose
> of processing non fictitious 
> data?
 
Illustration and also hypothesis testing.
 
> C) What do you state is the difference 
> in principle between any relative and 
> any absolute measure?

Absolute refers to a universal standard. A relative measure involves a
rescaling of the absolute measure for comparative purposes.

> DECLARED DEFINITIONS:
> 
> (i)  DEFINE ABSOLUTE FITNESS and 
> describe how it can be measured.
 
If we define fitness as being that which is maximised by the action of
natural selection, then the concept of absolute fitness seems to be a
meaningless concept.
 
> (ii) DEFINE  RELATIVE FITNESS and say
> how it can be measured. 
> 

Fitness is fundamentally a relative concept, so "relative fitness" =
"fitness". Measuring it would, of course, require a more detailed
definition.

Note that John Edser wrote:

> Within Hamilton's rule the two fitnesses
> being compared are inclusive fitness
> (rb) and Darwinian fitness implied as
> as just the cost (c).

This is wrong. Conventionally, inclusive fitness is r b - c, not r b. 
 
> (iii) WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF 
> FORMING AND COMPARING FITNESSES?
>

Edser wrote:
 
> For Hamilton et al, to measure 
> when fitness associations 
> can evolve.
> 

It would be more correct to say "For Hamilton et al, to measure when
social traits are favoured/disfavoured by natural selection".

In general - "to measure when traits are favoured/disfavoured by
natural selection"

> (iv) DEFINE ALL THE TERMS 
> EMPLOYED.
>

Edser wrote:
 
> Within the rule:
> 
> r: relatedness IBD
>

I assume that this is short hand for "r is the probability that a gene
picked randomly from the actor and a gene picked randomly from the
recipient (at a given locus) are identical by descent". If so, this is
not the conventional definition of relatedness in Hamilton's rule. An
illustrative example is that relatedness can be negative, whereas
probability measures cannot.
  
Edser wrote:

> b: all resources transferred from the
> donor to the recipient where the
> donor is also referred to as "the actor".

Incorrect. Conventionally, b refers to the marginal fitness benefit
incurred by recipients of social behaviour. It is not a measure of
resources.

Edser wrote:

> c: the cost of b

More specifically, c is the marginal fitness cost to the actor.
 
> (v) DEFINE ALL THE CONSTANTS 
> EMPLOYED.

Hamilton's rule contains no explicit constants. r, b and c are
functions, which may incorporate constants.
 
> (vi) WHAT ARE ALL THE COMBINATIONS
> OF VARIABLES THAT THE PROPOSITION
> ALLOWS?

Edser wrote:

> The rule allows for ten
> different combinations of just three
> variables: r,b and c:
> 
> (a) +r +b +c
> (b) +r +b -c
> (c) +r -b -c
> (d) +r -b +c
> (e) -r +b -c
> (f) +r +b +c
> (g) -r -b -c
> (h) -r -b +c
> (i) -r +b +c
> (j) -r -b -c
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Note 1:
> -r: It is biologically meaningless
> to allow r to become less than zero
> reducing the number of valid combinations
> to five.
> 

Incorrect. r can be negative, as I have repeatedly explained, and most
recently was pointed out by Jim Menegay. Negative r is the basis of
Hamiltonian spite - see Hamilton 1970.

Edser also wrote:
> -b: Can be EITHER the removal of resources
> from the recipient to the donor OR just the wanton
> destruction of the resources owned by the recipient
> via the donor. In the former case the donor makes
> a gain but in the latter both sustain a loss.
> Note that both acts are mathematically identical
> but they are not biologically identical.

Whether the donor makes a gain or a loss depends on the sign of c.

> (vii) WHAT ARE THE 
> SUPPOSED BIOLOGICAL 
> STATES THAT THE 
> PROPOSITION IS
> SAID TO BE ABLE TO
> MEASURE
>

Edser wrote:
 
> Out of the ten possible
> logical combinations
> Hamilton et al only define 
> four as biologically
> meaningful:
> 
> Spite: 		+r -b +c 
> 
> Mutualism: 		+r +b -c
> 
> Altruism:		+r +b +c
> 
> Selfishness:	+r -b -c
> 

The value of r is irrelevant to classification of the behaviour. r
becomes important in assessing whether the behaviour is
favoured/disfavoured by natural selection.

Edser wrote:

> Mutualism: 		any case of -c
> 
> Altruism:  		any case of +c
>

I gather that we are supposing b>0. If so, I agree.
---
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 8/2/04 4:53:02 PM