Re: Integrity
From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 01/23/05
- Next message: Jim McGinn: "Joe: "slightly misleading""
- Previous message: Jim McGinn: "Re: Perpetually Perplexed"
- Maybe in reply to: John Edser: "Integrity"
- Next in thread: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Integrity"
- Reply: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Integrity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:18:46 -0500 (EST)
> > JE:-
> > Just look at what you wrote above:
> > 1) "I offered a theory as to what BOH meant
> > by this answer". No theory of "what BOH
> > meant" is required. BOH either retracts
> > his entirely unambiguous answer
> > or he doesn't. He never retracted it
> > despite many offers by me to do so.
> > Therefore, his answer stands, exactly
> > as written. He even requested me to
> > provide other quotes of himself which
> > confirmed this answer, e.g. BOH confirmed
> > that c remains arbitrary. Are you now going
> > to argue that some arbitrary things are
> > less arbitrary than others?
> JM:-
> Of course! You seem to think that something
> is either arbitrary or it is not.
>snip<
JE:-
Nothing can be BOTH arbitrary AND
non arbitrary except at some
very entertaining mathematicians
Mad Hatter's Tea Party.
DEFINITIONS:-
Arbitrary: "Based on or subject to individual
discretion or preference or sometimes impulse
or caprice".
SO, what do YOU think non arbitrary means?
> > 2) .."received confirmation from BOH that
> > he did, in fact, mean what I thought he
> > meant"
> > JE:-
> > The above sounds like (or was) some
> > Mickey Mouse collusion in some back room
> > to attempt to retract the non retractable
> > in order to placate some mafia boss...
> JM:-
> Hmmm. Let me see if I understand your suggested scenario.
> I, in Cleveland, and BOH, in Helsinki, got together in
> a (presumably electronic) backroom and decided to mislead
> Edser (in Melbourne?). We concocted this plot to placate
> Boss Joe (The Enforcer) Felsenstein, in Seattle.
JE:-
What you wrote was _arbitrary_. Anybody can
validly claim it to imply anything they wish.
ANY allocated (subjective) meanings are NOT
the issue. The issue is that you proffered
such nonsensical accusations re: myself
to suggest I was telling lies.
> > JE:-
> > 3) "..and then stated clearly that I
> > agreed with what he intended to say"
> > This can only mean BOH has admitted he
> > had no idea what he was talking
> > about in the first place
> JM:-
> Or, perhaps, no idea what YOU were talking about.
JE:-
I am going to do a Jim McGinn Here
because it is entirely warranted:-
Look you idiot, if BOH had no
idea about what I was talking about
then all he had to do was say so and
ask me to clarify. He did no such thing
because he DID understand what I was
talking about. A child of 12 could.
Your claim that you do not, belies
belief. Therefore, the only rational
conclusion possible is that you are
involved in a deliberate attempt to
confound the issue for sbe readers.
The paranoid idea that only Menegay knows what
people _actually_ understand is so outrageously
arrogant as to make him fully qualified to run
the next torture/witch burning exercise.
> > JE:-
> > until you provided
> > him with his own intentions. I didn't know
> > (but had suspected) BOH was just a computer ;-)
> > Anyway, only a computer is required to provide a
> > correct answer anyway because it is entirely
> > deductive.
JE:-
I ask sbe reader's to ask themselves
why JM never denied that he had
"provided him [BOH] with his own
intentions"
> > JE:-
> > 4) "..but felt that he was probably not
> > giving a correct answer to the question that you
> > were intending to ask."
> > JRE:-
> > This is a real corker: It seems JM not only
> > knows BOH's intentions better than BOH himself
> > does but he also knows my intentions better than
> > I do myself!
> JM:-
> Exactly the opposite. I don't claim to understand your
> intentions.
JE:-
Like EK you are a mathematician who
you cannot reason your way out of
a paper bag.
You wrote: "..to the question that you
[JE] were intending to ask".
Here your paranoid arrogance is asserting
that ONLY you understood an alleged
_intended_ question by myself. NO such
intended question ever existed except within
your paranoia. At this point you should
apologise to sbe reader's in general and
myself in particular for asserting such
hopeless nonsense.
> JM:-
>snip<
> And, in any case, the correct inference would have been
> that I know your intentions better than BOH does, not
> better than you do.
JE:-
Nonsense. JE is not BOH (thankfully for
both of us, I imagine).
> JM:-
> [snip demands that I provide quotes from the original
> postings where I (idiotically - I should never have
> gotten involved!) offered my hypothesis as to what
> BOH intended. Anyone who is interested in the originals
> can go to the source.]
JE:-
JM simply snips the outrageous logic (I went to
immense trouble to exactly identify) that he
the gall to offer sbe reader's as a REASONED
argument re: how I was supposed to have lied
and just walks away from it as if it never
happened.
> > > JM:-
> > > I cannot give an answer to the question you intended
> > > to ask here, because the question makes no sense to
> > > me.
> > JE:-
> > I didn't know Jim could read my mind so that he
> > KNOWS the question I INTENDED to ask even before I
> > ask it, so that Jim does NOT NOW have to answer
> > the question I actually asked. Dear oh dear...
> JM:-
> And again, John objects to what he sees as my claim
> of the ability to read minds, when actually I am saying
> that I can't answer the question because I CAN'T
> read minds.
JE:-
Yet again JM proves he cannot reason
or refuses to do so when it suits him.
If JM "cannot read minds" then he
cannot know "the question you [JE] intended"
because the only possible way he could _know_
this is to read my mind. JM WILL NEVER
ACCEPT THAT NO OTHER QUESTION WAS INTENDED
BY ME BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SUIT HIS ARGUMENT.
JM uses his admitted non ability to
read minds to read mine(!) so as to "know"
"the question you [JE] intended" just to provide
a spurious reason to sbe reader's as to why he
will NEVER answer THE QUESTION I ACTUALLY ASKED
or comment on the answer BOH ACTUALLY PROVIDED.
JM should be utterly ashamed of himself for
this public display irrationality for what
can only be described as deceitful purposes.
> > > JM:-
> > > You seem to have some misconception as to what
> > > "c" represents. In an effort to find out what you
> > > think that "c" represents, I went to a great deal of
> > > effort to construct a "thought experiment" in which
> > > you, I, and BOH could present our apparently different
> > > ideas about what "c" represents, as a step toward
> > > understanding each other. You refused to participate
> > > unless I would agree in advance to fill out an
> > > irrelevant and (to me) unacceptable "form".
> > JE:-
> > It was and remains perfectly clear what I mean
> > by c and what Hamilton must have meant by it.
> JM:-
> Not clear to me.
JE:-
I entirely agree.
> > JE:-
> > It has always been perfectly clear. You don't
> > like it because it attacks your misconceptions/bias
> > or both so you pretend not to understand it.
> JM:-
> Hmmm. Who is reading whose mind?
JE:-
Since your
claims as to why you refused to answer
the question I ACTUALLY ASKED are proven
irrational then this become the
most simple hypothesis as to why an
intelligent man should act is such an
utterly disgraceful way.
> > JE:-
> > This is why I filled out a declaration of meaning
> > but you refused to do so. I will define c
> > YET AGAIN. I challenge you to define it here.
> > I predict that you will refuse to do so.
> JM:-
> Your prediction fails.
JM:-
I can see no DEFINITION by yourself
of what c is!@$%^&*
> > JE:-
> > The value c is the cost of b in fertile
> > organism units of fitness.
> JM:-
> Ok. Now we are getting down to it.
JE:-
Do you have myopia? Perhaps you cannot read?
Perhaps you have a disease that destroys
the memory of time? I have defined it this
way for over FOUR YEARS. I have produced
a declaration of meaning. I have provided
a refutable experiment. None of this matters
does it! You do not like it and that is all
that matters to you.
> JM:-
> I am willing to
> accept fertile organism units as the measuring scheme
> for fitness. But you still need to clarify. For
> example, I would have written "the cost of the behavior"
> but you wrote "the cost of b". This worries me.
JE:-
In Hamilton's RULE b is donated resources.
This can be food donated, risks taken etc,
measured in fertile organism fitness units as
the cost c where rb is NOT A TOTAL.
Hamilton's RULE does not need to refer
to ANY phenotype (behavioural or non behavioural).
IF any one gene has an INDEPENDENT fitness as
Hamilton et all suppose their heuristic gene does,
THEN it MUST compete against every other gene at every
other locus at Hamilton's gene level of selection,
NO EXCEPTIONS. If that gene provides say, rotten teeth
then it STILL MUST compete to increase its OWN relative
frequency (a comparison of the freq. of the wildtype
allele that codes for non rotten teeth with the freq.
of the rotten teeth allele on just a 100% relative basis)
over an entirely _undefined_ number of organism
generations (not gene generations!) no matter
that selection at the Darwinian fertile organism
level of selection does with it! This Darwinian
organism level MUST compete against the lower gene
level where the rule indicates that, no matter what
that selfish gene actually provides at the Darwinian
level, from self immolation to just a hapless organism
with rotten teeth, this gene CAN still be selected FOR
when rb>c! This is because Mad Hatter Mathematics within
the rule has reversed cause and effect. Now do you
understand why Felsenstein refuses to discuss
cause and effect?
> JM:-
> Furthermore, we need to come to agreement as to
> whether the cost is to be a cost per behavior (i.e. per act),
> or a cumulative cost of all altruistic behaviors (acts)
> that the organism performs over its lifetime. I
> can live with either assumption, but I want to have
> it clear which we are talking about.
JE:-
ALL GENE CENTRIC FITNESSES
COUNTS REMAIN INCOMPLETE.
No total fitness count is ever
specified. No finite time period
to complete a fitness count within
Hamilton's Rule is ever defined.
Hamilton's rb count remains forever
ongoing. This is why the sign of c
always remains arbitrary. The only
possible way Hamilton's ongoing rb
incomplete total can become complete
is when c = c(max). NO OTHER WAY EXISTS
The only limit that exists that does not
allow the rule to remain 100% relative
is c(max). Very clearly, you cannot invest
resources that you do not have (unless
of course you are Stalin so you just
steal them using group selective logic).
Thus Hamilton's 100% relative rule
ceases to be so with just ONE case
of c, c(max). This just happens to be
(surprise surprise) the REFUTABLE
Darwinian maximand fitness.
Hamilton et al deleted it because:
1) They made a very basic mistake.
OR:
2) They remain engaged is a deliberate
act of deceit.
The only conclusion any RATIONAL person
can make given over four frustrating years
of myself pointing out this basic error, where
people of Felsenstein's stature have _refused_
to just discuss the matter, is 2.
> JM:-
> I would prefer,
> though, that it be a cost per behaviour, since we
> need to multiply by r, which should properly be
> understood as referring to a single behaviour with
> a single donor and a single recipient.
JE:-
As I have pointed out the phenotype of
any independent gene fitness becomes
_immaterial_ to Hamilton's selfish
gene argument.
> JM:-
> Most importantly, we must come to agreement regarding
> the "basis" for calculating c. Every cost must be
> given as the difference between one situation and another.
JE:-
The value c is the cost of b in fertile organism
units. That is it! A 10 year old can understand it.
> JM:-
> Clearly, we are taking one of the two situations to be
> the case where the organism behaves altruistically,
> and may also be the recipient of some altruism. What
> is the other situation - the basis for the cost calculation?
> I would claim that it is a hypothetical situation in
> which the organism does not behave altruistically, ..
> but still receives all of the benefits from other organisms'
> altruism that it would have received in the original case.
> Do you agree with this?
JE:-
Your biology (above) is more Mad Hatter
nonsense. You have it all in reverse.
The cost of b in fertile organism units
is just one part of a refutable Darwinian
fitness maximand (cmax). Yet, here
you go attempting to reverse the empirical
facts of nature by suggesting the exact
opposite: mutualism and not altruism is just
a "hypothetical situation".
The case "in which the organism does
not behave altruistically, but still
receives all of the benefits from other
organisms' altruism that it would have
received in the original case" is the
ENTIRELY opposing Darwinian mutualistic
argument. Here the cost of c now
constitutes an investment. Until rb
completes at cmax you can never know
if c is an altruistic cost OR an
investment cost. This is why the
sign of c must remain arbitrary
until c is included within the
rule. This remains empirical.
It is not just obvious that
mutualised associations can pay as much
IF NOT MORE than altruistic associations
because mutualistic associations can provide
absolute (total) geometric fitness gains?
> > JE:-
> > The value cmax
> > is the limit of this cost and represents
> > a Darwinian refutable maximand total fitness.
> > This can be defined as the total number of
> > fertile forms reproduced by each parent into
> > one population.
> JM:-
> Please clarify. Is cmax the fitness with or without
> altruism?
JE:-
When cmax is PAID by the actor
altruism is proven because cmax
is the maximal COST in fertile
form units. If you pay cmax
that is it. You have nothing left over
to reproduce with either normally or by
proxy. You remain fertile but cannot
reproduce just subsist, i.e. you have
now been proven altruistic.
> JM:-
> With or without the benefits of altruism?
> Is there a different cmax for each individual, or is
> cmax an average over the population? (Your claim
> that it is a "maximand" suggests to me that it is
> a population average, but other things you have
> written seem to contradict this.) Also, that
> "into one population" still strikes me as a little
> mysterious. You seem to be suggesting that an organism
> has multiple fitnesses - one for each population that
> it "reproduces into". I can imagine how this complication
> might be useful in analyzing some kinds of "structured
> populations", but until I understand how it works, it
> can't understand cmax or the meaning you give to c.
JE:-
Maximands are NOT population averages.
Ok. You don't understand what a maximand fitness
is. Lets clear that up. The total number of fertile
forms reproduced into one population by each
parent is one maximand i.e. one total Darwinian
fitness. Evolution is per population but selection
is per individual. One individual may have as many
independent fitnesses as populations it exports
its reproductions into. This is like a person having
many different bank accounts in many different
currencies in many different countries. He may
be bankrupt in one and a millionaire in another
(depending on agreements between countries).
At the moment the Darwinian maximand
fitness cannot be predicted except in
retrospect. The aim is to be able to
predict it. Thus cmax is the Darwinian
maximand fitness expressed as a cost,
i.e. you _cannot_ pay _more_. If you pay
cmax that is it, you are now Darwinian
fitness bankrupt within that population.
> > JE:-
> > No total fitness even exists
> > within Hamilton's Rule because ALL Neo
> > Darwinian fitnesses are defined as ongoing.
> JM:-
> I'm not sure what "ongoing" means in this context.
JE:-
All Neo Darwinian fitness counts are ongoing.
A gene can be selected for at the 1st organism
generation and then selected against in the 2nd
only to be selected for in the next ..for ever
and ever, amen. This why c the sign of c remains
arbitrary until cmax is reached. Only here is
gene centric Neo Darwinian ongoing fitness
nonsense halted within the rule so the
sign of c becomes _non_ arbitrary.
> JM:-
> But the reason why no total fitnesses appear in the
> rule is simple. We subtracted two total fitnesses
> (of the donor) to get c..
JE:-
It is impossible to have TWO total
fitnesses for the same donor.
Such a supposition is hopelessly
irrational. You may as well argue,
like Enron accounts argued, that an
accounting entry can be either
a debit or a credit depending
on how you felt at the time
allowing more than one
contradictory bank account
total for any one company.
However, prove me wrong and
produce these two mythical
_fitness totals_ for the same
donor.
> JM:-
> and we subtracted two total
> fitnesses (of the recipient)
> to get b.
JE:-
Nonsense.
(as above).
> JM:-
> Having
> performed this subtraction, there are not total
> fitnesses left lying around.
Yes, m the deleted baseline fitness.
You may find that when it is
included the rule now becomes:
rb-c> m
Most of the fitness within
Hamilton's rule lies underwater
like an iceberg: the deleted baseline
fitness m.
> > JE:-
> > This is why the sign of c must remain
> > arbitrary within the rule.
> And I continue to fail to understand what you are
> saying here. Arbitrary in what sense?
JE:-
As Forrest Gump said:
"stupid is as stupid does"
Likewise: arbitrary is as arbitray
does.
> JM:-
> The sign of c is completely determined
> by the subtraction that yielded c.
JE:-
This is just a relative measure
(a comparison of rb to c by
simple subtaction over an arbitrary
time operiod) and not an absolute
measure (the same comparison over
a defined time period). No time
period to complete rb is defined
within Hamilton's Rule so it can
only be forced to completion
when cmax is paid. This is why
only this condition proves altruism
within the rule bit remains DELETED
by Hamilton et al.
> JM:-
> If the subtraction
> yields a negative number, then the sign of c is
> negative. How is this "arbitrary"?
JE:-
Because the rb fitness count remains
incomplete until cmax is spent.
Until cmax is spent all rb fitness
counts remain INCOMPLETE.
> > JE:-
> > I have provided;
> > 1) A simple model of total Darwinian fitness.
> > 2) A refutable experiment within nature
> > that can entirely refute Total Darwinian Fitness.
> > 3) A rule that only Total Darwinian Fitness
> > can provide that entirely contradicts
> > Hamilton's Rule:
> > ____________________________________________
> > Edser's Rule: No total Darwinian fitness
> > can be selected to be reduced, no exceptions.
> > ____________________________________________
> JM:-
> But you haven't said (or perhaps, I just haven't read
> where you said) what is meant by the phrase "selected
> to be reduced". How would you recognize that your
> experiment had shown that fitness was selected to be
> reduced and thus provided an (unwelcome and unexpected)
> refutation of Darwin?
JE:-
Dear oh dear, why is it always ME
who has to reiterate evolutionary
theory basics time and time again?
"Selected to be reduced" means
exacty what says! One Darwinian
maximand total CAN be reduced by
ANY event OTHER THAN A NATURALLY
SELECTED EVENT.
> > JE:-
> > I have shown by simple deductive reasoning
> > that if all terms within any mathematical
> > expression are just variables then that
> > expression remains mathematically valid
> > but not scientifically valid.
> JM:-
> Disagree. And I provided my reasoning.
JE:-
What reasoning? None exist in the above
except your argument, like Enron
accountants argument, you have provided
two total fitness counts for one donar..
> > JE:-
> > I have
> > gone to the trouble of defining and
> > providing examples of simplified and
> > over simplified models arguing what
> > can be a valid or just an invalid use
> > of them. Nobody else here has done so.
> JM:-
> Because nobody else thinks that the distinction
> between simplified and oversimplified models
> is significant. To be honest, I didn't even
> realize that you were making this distinction
> until this thread.
JE:-
The argument is circular. "Nobody else
thinks that the distinction between
simplified and oversimplified models
is significant" because their view
of reality is based on just a model
within which nobody thinks that the
distinction between simplified and
oversimplified models is significant.
Can I suggest that someone pull their
head out of their model backside
(you can't stick your head up your
backside and stay alive in reality) and
reply to the argument that the deletion
of all constants within any mathmematical
expression is logical but not rational.
Science is ENTIRELY based on reasoned argument
where all reasoned arguments are logical
but not all logical arguments are rational,
e.g. the proposition of -time within
any scientific notion is logcal but
irrational. Why is this the case?
Simply because anything becomes possible
if time can be reversed and no
documented observation of -t has ever
observed .
Any documented observation -t within
nature refutes all sciences (physical
and biological) as we know it, but it
does NOT refute mathematics.
________________________________
Please answer this question:
Is mathematics a science?
________________________________
> > JE:-
> > JM's discussion did not even attempt
> > to discriminate between model use and
> > misuse.
> JM:-
> Because I believe that there are countless ways of
> misusing models.
JE:-
Please provide JUST ONE specific example
and then define what constitutes a use
and a misuse of it.
> > > JM:-
> > > I think that charges of evasion are more justified in
> > > the other direction. I'll refrain from counter-charging
> > > lack of integrity; that would be redundant, because
> > > I am accusing you of deliberate and malicious lieing.
> > > Again, I ask, Josh, isn't there something that can be
> > > done about this?
> > JE:-
> > yes there is: Please just answer the questions
> > asked or prove that question was not logically
> > valid.
> JM:-
> I can't answer the question if the question is not
> understood (by ME).
JE:-
Then PLEASE say so or ask BOH
who DOES understand it instead of the
deceitful rubbish you wrote, including
your statement that I lied.
> JE:-
> Whether YOU understand your questions
> is totally irrelevant to whether I understand them.
JE:-
No. The question makes logical sense.
You must provide an answer. It appears,
after all this time that your
difficulty is understanding the RATIONAL
difference between just a relative and
an absolute cost. I hope you don't
run a business...
> JM:-
> And I can't prove that a question is not logically
> valid unless it is the case that a question can be
> unambiguously interpreted in only one way.
JE:-
If a question is not logical then it has no
answer because it makes no sense at all.
Here you have to provide the contradiction
that exists within the question.
> > JE:-
> > Stop insulting the intelligence of sbe
> > reader's with (thankfully) comical but entirely
> > evasive and insulting nonsense.
> JM:-
> And I repeat: Your perception of evasion is paranoid.
> (Though your perception of insults seems to be normal!)
> Your questions fail to find answers because they are
> not understood as meaningful questions.
JE:-
You remain ENTIRELY DELUSIONAL
BOH ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
Dear oh dear...
For sbe reader's:
Here is my candid opinion.
JM understands both the question
and BOH's answer. He also understands
the dire implications of BOH's answer: the
rule was and remains irrational so it cannot
be used as a stand alone fitness accounting
device to determine when altruism and non
altruism can evolve in nature as it has been
for over 50 years.
BOH admits that the sign of c remains
arbitrary and has hinted that
the rule was never meant to be used in
certain ways (he will not list what they are).
When pressed to identify them he just suggests
he is going for long stiff drink. It is obvious
to me that BOH cannot bring himself to admit
that what follows from his answer was the
rule was misused. This is because he would be
letting down his own tribe. Some tribal elder
would not like it so BOH might wake up one
morning with a horses head in his bed...
My very best regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: Jim McGinn: "Joe: "slightly misleading""
- Previous message: Jim McGinn: "Re: Perpetually Perplexed"
- Maybe in reply to: John Edser: "Integrity"
- Next in thread: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Integrity"
- Reply: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Integrity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
