> > > >>JE:-
> > > >>Here we go 'round  the mulberry bush....
> > > >>
> > > >>--------------quote----------------------
> > > >>
> > > >>1) 22/01/2004:
> > > >>
> > > >>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 --------------------
> > > >>
> > > >>For the 6th (?) time and counting:
> > > >>
> > > >>Do you agree or disagree with the
> > > >>answer Dr O'Hara provided? A simple
> > > >>YES or NO will suffice.

>snip<

> JM:-
> Some time ago, John asked my
> interpretation of the quoted exchange between JE and BOH.
> I answered:
> ------------quote from JM--------------
> > My interpretation is that he thought you asked: "Does the
> > rule discriminate between altruism and mutualism?  That
> > is, is there some hidden mechanism in the rule that
> > "notices" a difference between a positive c (i.e. a
> > decrease in absolute fitness, indicating altruism)
> > and a negative c (i.e. an increase in absolute
> > fitness, indicating mutualism)?"
> >
> > My interpretation is that he answered: "No, there
> > is no discrimination between these two situations
> > within the rule.  The rule handles both cases without
> > discriminating.  Of course, the answer you get may
> > well be different in the two cases, but you are using
> > the same rule in either case."
> ---------- end quote -------------------
> Call the original JE question "question A".  Call the original
> BOH response "answer A".  Call my interpretations
"question B".
> and "answer B".
> John asserts (vehemently) that question A and question B mean
> the same thing.  BOH says that answer A and answer B mean the
> same thing.  John has agreed with this.  I have said that I agree
> with answer B, though I am skeptical about the meaning of A.
> NAS has just now pretty much said that he agrees with answer B.

>snip<

JE:-
Note 1:
All acts in Hamilton's rule are
bilateral acts, i.e. at all times
a selective force exists on _both_
the recipient/recipients and the
donor, no exceptions. Any argument
that only a unilateral measure of
fitness is required to be measured
to allow the evolution of any behaviour
within Hamilton's rule remains incorrect.

Note 2:
Because the recipient/recipients receive 
something (b is positive) then the act has 
to be a gain for them. Thus no selective 
pressure exists on the recipient/
recipients to act against any positive b 
whereas when b becomes negative it does
exist. This proves bilateral selective
pressures exist when b is positive.

The Question A:
When b remains positive (spite is
ignored) what is the difference between
a _reduced_ positive c and a negative c?

Biological translation of question A:
What is the difference between just a
_reduced_ donation and an investment
as measured by Hamilton's rule?

Dr O'Hara's unambiguous answer: 
"As far as the  rule is concerned, 
none."

I have given Dr O'Hara every opportunity
to change this answer. He remains adamant
that this is his answer. NAS has explicitly
said he does not agree with Dr O'Hara's
answer but has now "amended" this so
nobody can tell what he means. You
have done likewise. NAS has a habit 
of changing his/her mind and being
ambiguous. We all make errors. 
However, please refer to our discussion
re: the basic requirement for a maximand
and his/her "on and off again" definitions 
of marginal fitness.

Required Definitions:
A investment: a cost c that is
paid for b that pays more than 
the cost c to the donor. 

Donation: a cost c that is paid for
b that pays less than the cost c
to the donor.

Discussion of question A:
A reduced donation is just a reduced
cost providing a _net loss_ to the donor 
whereas a negative c is a _net gain_ for 
the donor.

The main point of asking this question is 
to illustrate that a reduced positive
c will appear as a negative c within 
Hamilton's rule. This refutes the proposition
that all negative c's are mutualistic
when spite is ignored. This is why Dr 
O'Hara was left with no other choice 
than to reluctantly agree that the
rule cannot discriminate between
a reduced positive c: just a reduced
donation that remains an _absolute_
loss for the donor and a negative c: 
an investment that produces an 
_absolute_ gain for the donor.

Conclusion:
Question A remains valid, specific 
and totally unambiguous. 
This is the question I am STILL 
asking and I have no intention of
changing my question to question B.

JM seeks to change my question to
question B. He even has the audacity
to suggest this is "what John meant".
I will politely ask Jim to ask his own
questions while I get on with asking
mine and PLEASE, let me determine 
what I mean...
______________________________________
MAJOR CONCLUSION:
The rule cannot discriminate between 
an absolute loss and an absolute gain.
______________________________________

This means the rule is biologically
meaningless as it stands. This has
always been obvious because r,b,
and c are just _biological_ variables.
ANY rule that only has variables
must end up ambiguous and therefore, 
meaningless. At least one constant
general term is required, no exceptions.
No constant term exists within Hamilton's
rule. It matters not a fig that the rule
is mathematically valid. Unless the rule
translates into meaningful biology the
rule FAILS, no exceptions.


Question B was:
What is the difference between
a positive c and negative c.

Biological translation:
What is the difference between
altruism and mutualism. 

Discussion:
In the rule, when spite is
ignored, altruism appears
as any case of a positive c
and mutualism any case of
negative c. This is NOT the 
same question I asked and
it does _not_ explore the rule
to same depth as the original
question even though it will
eventually, lead to the same 
conclusion. 

Jim, to save everybody time and 
effort please fill in the form:

 "A Declaration Of Meaning"

Please UNAMBIGUOUSLY answer 
question A:

--------------quote----------------------

1) 22/01/2004:

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 --------------------

Do you agree or disagree with Dr O'Hara's
answer? 

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
 
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 8/8/04 9:57:34 PM