Re: Heuristic Value
From: Peter F - for EIMC Internetional Ptd. Lty. (fell_spamtrap_in_at_ozemail.com.au)
Date: 02/21/05
- Next message: Larry Moran: "Re: Labels and Obfuscations"
- Previous message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Lottery tickets"
- In reply to: Jim McGinn: "Re: Heuristic Value"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:48:41 -0500 (EST)
"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cv7sk6$30kv$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>
> > > Peter, why don't you show us how you answer these
> > > questions:
> > >
> > > 1) All other things being the same, are genes that
> > > are IBD different from genes that are not IBD in
> > > terms of their causative properties? Yes, No?
> > >
> > > 2) If they are different in terms of their causative
> > > properties what is the PROXIMATE mechanism by which
> > > they produce this difference in causative properties?
> > > I mean, do genes somehow know whether or not they are
> > > IBD and act accordingly? Yes, No? How do they know
> > > this?
> > >
> > > 3) If they are not different in terms of their
> > > causative properties then why even bother to
> > > distinguish between them?
>
> Why did you fail to answer these questions?
I won't answer _that_ question.
But I shall dare to comment on the tough logic behind
the "1)2)3) question/challenge".
Hamilton's rule is not the only example in science when some wrong
assumption (premise) still manages to result in a semblance of successful
mathematical model.
And, this rule, that has caused so much rumble in s.b.e., is not even
generally true enough to
match reality in cases where, e.g. crowding complicates the accounting and
the calculation.
[And that is only one rational reason why NOT
TO CARE so much. ;-)]
I agree that the 'relatedness within the rule' is a superfluous factor if
the rule is interpreted
your way.
Now, if I take it to be my task to 'defend' this formula...
[N.B. it is one that I don't care much about because of the narrow kind of
altruism
that it originally was primarily intended to explain, and because when
implicitly extrapolated
to other evolutionary developments (as it is here in this debate), the model
tends, even if tweaked, to become a
still coarser, and at best accurate by coincidence.]
......THEN I would say that the 'relatedness factor' that figures in
Hamilton's rule is obviously a relatedness by direct descent
from a towards eusociality mutated mother's "progeny phenotyping genes",
so it poses no problem.
Self-sacrificing acts in other social contexts can be seen as
part spandrels, part AEVASIVE or AEVASIVE related effects.
[If you don't have an EPT understanding of AEVASIVE, then think: "higher
levels of evolutionary (even psychsociobiological type) patterning",
instead.]
As far as the logical relevance of "r" beyond a description of
the 'phylogeny into eusocialism', within Hamilton's formula goes,
one might merely need to be remember that
behavior-mediated selective effects on genetic/epigenetic means and
mechanisms of
inheritance happen to and between individuals within a shared habitat;
and, even more significantly so, when both habitat and habits are shared.
[Here is a link to a page where Hamilton's "r" is described as representing
"the appropriate measure or relationship",
and that the rule is "essentially negative" (telling us only what should not
evolve)
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003410.html]
-----------
Hopefully, this view interpretation might satisfy your desire for
convergence (towards your thinking). :-)
<snip>
> > A probabilistic (or Tolerance Principled) attitude
> > should resolve this conflict.
> >
> > I suggest one simply tries to ask:
> > What is more likely to be the
> > cause of any broad similarity between the
> > functures (both structural and functional characteristics)
> > of two individuals -- "convergence", or IBD?
>
> Stop right here. IBD is not a cause of process in any way whatsoever.
> Convergence is a causal process. So, to answer your question:
> Convergence is the cause of broad similarity, not IBD.
You are correct. I was sloppy.
I overlooked the I and the B and spoke as if there was only
the D. ;->
<snip>
> Funny, but you are unable to come up with any specific disputes of my
> thinking.
I thought it might gladden you. :-)
>
> Give us a specific example.
Another time, another topic. ;-)
>
> > BTW, since you wielded the word, to me "Science" is (approximately)
> what
> > results,
> > and can begin to accumulate [[[as if into a 'SEPTIC think tank'
> ;-)]]], when
> > systematic practical work is added to
> > already perceptively probing cognitive (philosophical)
> preoccupations. %-)
> >
> > That is why I tend to claim (to gain kudos consistent with my
> > near-conviction) that
> > EPT is (my concEPTs are) only deceptively 'non science-aligned'. %-}
>
> Good luck with this.
Thanks. I am sure to need some. %-|
P
- Next message: Larry Moran: "Re: Labels and Obfuscations"
- Previous message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Lottery tickets"
- In reply to: Jim McGinn: "Re: Heuristic Value"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
