> > > > > > > > JE:
> > > > > > > >
___________________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Box A
> > > > > > > > IF the rule cannot MEASURE any 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)" THEN the rule
> > > > > > > > is MISUSED when it is employed to measure
> > > > > > > > when organism fitness altruism
(OFA) can evolve.
> > > > > > > >
__________________________________________________

> > > > > > > JM:-
> > > > > > > A1 = absolute fitness of an organism
> > > > > > > if it acts altruistically
> > > > > > > A2 = absolute fitness of that organism
> > > > > > > if it does not act altruistically
> > > > > > > c1 (the positive c) = A2 - A1
> > > > > > > A3 = absolute fitness of a (different?)
> > > > > > > organism if it acts mutualistically-
> > > > > > > A4 = absolute fitness of that organism if
> > > > > > > it does not act mutualistically
> > > > > > > c2 = (the negative c) A4 - A3
> > > > > > > D (the difference that MUST(?) be
measured) = c1 - c2
> > > > > > >   = A2 - A1 - A4 + A3

> > > > > > > JM:-
> > > > > > > Is that what you meant, John?

JE:-
We are not considering "what I meant"
we are only considering what Hamilton 
et al meant. Only two conditions
with just one c cost ever existed within 
Hamilton's rule and not 4 conditions
with two c costs. These two conditions
were defined by Hamilton et al as 
"altruism" and "mutualism"
and were supposed to be measured by all 
cases of +c and -c, respectively via the
rule. As you have explicitly agreed but BOH
has only agreed implicitly, no case 
of +c can be shown to only measure altruism.
At all times, every case of +c could be _either_
altruism or mutualism, no exceptions, in the
rule AS IT STANDS.

> > > > JE:-
> > > > [snip] Do you now agree or
> > > > disagree  that only two conditions
> > > > (A1 and A2) exist within Hamilton's
> > > > rule allowing just one valid cost, c?

> > > JM:-
> > > I completely agree, John.  One "c", two fitness associations
> > > in Hamilton's rule.  The logical next step seems to be
> > > that you will reword whatever it was that you were trying to
> > > say in Box A, ..

> > >snip for clarity<

> > JE:-
> > No clarification is required as to
> > what is claimed in box A because
> > it remains _absolutely_ unambiguous.
> > Just _one_ VALUE of just one c is
> > measured and not two values of two
> > c's. This one c value represents
> > EITHER, an absolute measure of c
> > or just a relative measure of c
> > within Hamilton's rule.
> > Do you agree that your previous
> > employment of 4 events (A1-A4) requiring
> > two separate c costs allowing 4 possible
> > cost value types (each of two c's could
> > be an absolute or relative measure) was
> > incorrect?

> JM:-
> I have already answered, repeatedly, that Hamilton's rule
> has only one c.
> Edser's repetition of the question, with the wording
> changed slightly, seems to be for the sole purpose of
> laying the blame for this confusion on me.  I have already
> addressed that question, as well.

JE:-
It was you and not me that proposed 4
conditions and two c costs simply because
you _insisted_ what I had written in box A 
was  ambiguous when it wasn't. 

[Big snip]

> > > > JE:-
> > > > ONLY TWO fitness associations
> > > > are attempted to be measured within Hamilton's rule
> > > > (A1 and A2) requiring just a single value of just one
> > > > cost, c .
> > > > JE:-
> > > > These TWO fitness associations defined by the rule
> > > > are [as corrected]:
> > 1) Mutualism: measured as true in every case of -c
> > 2) Altruism : measured as true in every case of +c

> > > JM:-
> > > [T]he definition of a fitness association seems to
> > > be changing here.  I thought (and John confirms just
> > > a few paragraphs back) that my A1 and A2 are the two
> > > relevant fitness associations.  Neither has anything to
> > > do with mutualism.

> > JE:-
> > Incorrect.
> > All cases of -c can only be mutualistic  because
> > -c represents a _gain_ for the actor. By
> > definition this is not a loss to the actor! Since
> > only _two_ states for the actor are identified via
> > the rule: altruistic and mutualistic, then -c has
> > to be mutualistic simply because it _cannot_ be
> > an altruistic act for the actor.

> JM:-
> John, I labeled those two states as A1 (altruistic) and
> A2 (not altruistic).
> Repeating here for clarity:
> A1 = absolute fitness of an organism
>   if it acts altruistically
> A2 = absolute fitness of that organism
>   if it does not act altruistically
> c1 (the positive c) = A2 - A1
> Are you saying here that it would have been better for me
> to have identified A2 - the non-altruistic state -
> as "mutualistic"?

JE:-
Yes. 
Do you agree that only _two_ states exist within
Hamilton's rule which were defined by Hamilton
et al as: "altruistic" and "mutualistic"?
Do you also agree that "-c has to be mutualistic 
simply because it _cannot_ be an altruistic act 
for the actor" ?

Only one state can actually be measured 
by the rule, the mutualistic state: any -c cost.
Hamilton et al's measure of altruism: any +c
cost CANNOT separate altruism form mutualism.

Please note: no "non altruistic" state exists 
within the rule. Calling "mutualism" "non altruism" 
is ambiguous because a "selfish state" which can have
just a zero association is also "non altruistic".

> JM:- 
> If so, a follow-up question.  Did you know that most
> neo-Darwinists would have identified the A2 non-altruistic
> state as "selfish" rather than "mutualistic"?

JE:-
Yes. It says a lot about their
understanding of the rule and 
psychological state don't you 
think? It is very clear to me 
that mutualism is only being 
denigrated as "selfish"
when logically it is no such 
thing because both parties
have gained absolutely. Mostly
just two responses to mutualism
(as measured by Hamilton's rule)
via Neo Darwinists are observable.
They simply ignore it or just
denigrate it as "selfish".

What is being implied by the misused
word "selfish" is that mutual gains
are mostly non equal and we cannot 
have THAT, can we! If you cannot 
smell the stench of political 
correctness biasing evolutionary theory 
then you must have a peg on your 
nose ;-)

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 7/22/04 6:08:47 AM