CORRECTION:

> > BOH:-
> > That's a big if, and I don't think your logic is correct.
 
> JE:-
> A "big if"?
> Any rational discourse is almost entirely
> focused on valid deductions that are possible from 
> the inductive inference/inferences provided within 
> the discourse. Such inductive inferences mostly take 
> the form of definitions. Hamilton's rule defines 
> altruism as any positive c and mutualism as any negative
> c. From these and other definitions, deductive sense 
> about the biological sciences is supposed to be possible
> using the rule. However, you have agreed that the rule
> cannot distinguish between "a reduced positive c and "a 
> negative c" where "a reduced positive c" represents
> an absolute loss but "a negative c" represents an
> absolute gain, to the actor. Why does the awesome
> significance of such an absurdity escape you?

CORRECTION: please change the signes from "-" to "+" in:
> What you have acknowledged means that mathematically,
> both "a reduced positive c" and "a negative c"
> appear as a -c cost. This proves that Hamilton
> et al's definition of altruism as " any -c cost
> measured by the rule" cannot distinguish between
> mutualism and altruism,

IT SHOULD NOW READ:
What you have acknowledged means that mathematically,
both "a reduced positive c" and "a negative c"
appear as a + cost. This proves that Hamilton
et al's definition of altruism as " any + cost
measured by the rule" cannot distinguish between
mutualism and altruism,..

Apologies,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au





 i.e. it cannot do the one,
> single job the rule was invented to do: support
> organism fitness altruism when group selection
> failed to be able to do so. Why wasn't it just
> obvious to you (and the Neo Darwinian establishment)
> that ALL costs do not necessarily constitute an
> ABSOLUTE loss because only two types of cost exist:
> 
> 1) Costs that produce an absolute loss.
> 2) Costs that produce an absolute gain.
> 
> These two types of cost represent absolute 
> opposites of each other, i.e. they are CONTRADICTORY
> to each other. This means where one is said to exist 
> the other must not exist because they are SELF EXCLUSIVE. 
> Thus, where both or either are said to exist then
> only contradictory nonsense was being offered.
> This is the case within the rule. For all cases
> of +c EITHER type 1 cost or type 2 cost was being
> measured via the rule, no exceptions. The rule 
> was always ambiguous and could only offer contradictory
> nonsense when it purported to measure altruism as 
> any case of +c.
> 
> Do you agree that since the rule cannot
> distinguish between the two basic contradictory
> states that it is supposed to be able to measure
> then the rule remains hopeless and was  misused
> to support OFA when classical group selection
> failed to be able to do so?
> 
> 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