Jim Menegay wrote:-
> > JE;-
> > 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.

>snip unsubstantiated accusation<

> > JM;-
> > Here is the exchange that I think you are talking about:
> > JE:-
> > ... Every measure of +c could also
> > be MUTUALISM with just _one_ exception: when
> > c = cmax where the actor becomes the equivalent
> > of just a sterile form.

> JM:-
> I'm guessing that the (+) here is not a typo.  So, I'm
> guessing that what he is saying is that a positive c,
> which Hamilton would call altruism, might actually
> be what Edser would call mutualism.  (Except when the
> "altruist" is sacrificing ALL of its fitness.  John
> does not call this mutualism).

JE:-
Here is the original exchange:-
-------------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 --------------------

IF: no "difference between
a reduced positive c and a 
negative c" exists within
the rule, where this has been 
agreed to by both BOH and JM
THEN: "a positive c, which Hamilton 
would call altruism" MUST "actually
be what Edser would call mutualism"
no exceptions.
CONCLUSION: All cases identified
by Hamilton et al as "altruistic"
remain ambiguous.

NOTE: Edser's definitions were 
not being discussed, only
Hamilton et al.



> ---------- quote ---------------
> JM;-
> Hmmm.  Do I agree with this?
> 
> YES! YES! A THOUSAND TIMES YES!!!!!
> 
> When Edser talks about altruism and mutualism, he is talking
> about something completely different than what a neo-Darwinist
> is talking about when those words are used.  As a result,
> when a neo-Darwinist makes a statement about altruism with
> the neo-Darwinist meaning in mind, Edser interprets it as
> a statement made using Edser's definition of altruism.  And,
> not surprisingly, the statement appears to Edser to be total
> nonsense.
> -----------end quote----------------
> 
> If you look back at what I said, John, you may realize that
> I agreed that a positive c (representing altruism by Hamilton's
> definition) might well be part of what YOU have been calling
> mutualism, by YOUR definition.

JE:-
My definition of altruism as: a selected
absolute loss to the actor remains the ONLY 
POSSIBLE definition because Hamilton et 
al's definition of altruism
as just: *ANY* positive c within the rule FAILS
ENTIRELY. It remains absurd to suggest that
altruism can be identified within the rule
as just "any positive c". This is because any
positive c could be mutualistic: the case where
c is only relatively positive but absolutely 
negative that you have agreed actually 
exists, which _cannot_ be differentiated from
the CONTRADICTORY case where c is both 
relatively positive and absolutely positive 
within the rule!
 
> JM:-
> The difference is that you seem to insist on counting bilateral
> flows of fitness through social interactions, whereas Hamilton's
> rule deals with unilateral fitness flows through social interactions.

JE:-
It remains utter nonsense for Hamilton et al to
suggest that a mutualistic flow can be measured
"unilaterally".

> JM:-
> That was the reason for my "YES YES" response.  You are defining
> terms differently than everyone else.  It is no wonder that
> you are completely confused about what Hamilton meant, and you
> have everyone else confused about what you mean.

JE:-
I am NOT "defining terms differently than everyone else"
I am including terms that nobody else _wishes_ to include.

> JM:- 
> To put it somewhat uncharitably, what I was agreeing to was
> that you are confused about what positive c means.

JE:-
You seem to have become confused about almost everything.
Please do not blame me (!), blame Hamilton et al who put
out an AMBIGUOUS RULE.

> JM:-
> To state what I really believe about positive c in Hamilton's
> rule: By definition, it indicates either altruism (if b is
> also positive) or spite (if b is negative).  A positive c
> indicating altruism would always be selectively disadvantageous
> to the actor if only the direct consequences were taken into
> account.

JE:-
This is _not_ about what you or I believe is, or
is not, the case (how many more time do I have
to repeat this?).

Hamilton et al (AND NOT EDSER) defines all cases
of positive c as altruism and all cases of a
negative c as mutualism. That is it. 

These definitions stand REFUTED as VALID definitions
because they make zero BIOLOGICAL sense because
ALL cases of positive c remain AMBIGUOUS.
Either you see it or you don't... I can't
force anybody to see it....


>snip<
 

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 7/23/04 9:41:14 PM