Re: Issues: A Question Of Integrity (was: Issues)



name_and_address_supplied@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-

Subject: Re: Issues: A Question Of Integrity (was: Issues)

> > > NAS:-
> > > The problem is that you are giving a (flawed) biological
> > interpretation
> > > of a simple mathematical manipulation. I don't know what is
supposed
> > to
> > > have been achieved by switching the condition rb>c to the
equivalent
> > > condition -rb<-c, however I can say that: (1) these conditions are
> > > exactly equivalent, and (2) no changes have been made to the signs
of
> > > the variables r, b and c.

> > JE:-
> > NAS simply evades the issue of the failure of Hamilton et al to
provide
> > non fraudulent fitness accounting. EITHER -c within -rb<-c
represents a
> > debit or it represents a CREDIT for Hamilton's only proactive actor.

> NAS:-
> c is the amount debited. Therefore we can regard -c as the amount
> credited to the actor. Debiting c is mathematically and biologically
> equivalent to crediting -c. So, I would have to answer that -c is
> indeed a credit.

JE:-
YOU HAVE TO "regard -c as the amount credited to the actor" IN BOTH
RULES, i.e. the mathematical signs of "+" and "-" must book keep in
exactly the same way in either rule even if all fitnesses must remain
>0. It is just biologically absurd for you to claim that "Debiting c is
mathematically and biologically equivalent to crediting -c". It is
MATHEMATICALLY equivalent but it is not BIOLOGICALLY equivalent. Here is
the proof: If you receive $50 from me then I am debited $50 but you are
credited $50 where all credits = debits mathematically. This does NOT
mean that it does not matter WHO you debit and credit to.

If c is a credit and d a debit:

50c = 50d

50c-50d = 0

The fact is mathematics alone cannot tell you who is to debited and who
is to credited because a credit equals a debit. All that idiotic
mathematics knows is that $50 moved SOMEWHERE.


Your rationale "Debiting c is mathematically and biologically equivalent
to crediting -c" is exactly the same rationale that discredited Enron
accountants employed to change debits into credits, but this time it is
biologically fraudulent.

> > JE:-
> > I
> > have provided a DETAILED explanation as to who must do what to whom
> > within the transformed rule only allowing the -c to represent an
actor
> > CREDIT contradicting NAS's claim that it represents an actor debit.

> NAS:-
> c is the debit. -c can be regarded as the credit.

JE:-
You have reversed your previous argument.

> > JE:-
> > So
> > what detailed explanation does NAS provide as his rebuttal? What
parts
> > of my explanation does he empirically refute? Absolutely nothing. No
> > detailed biological explanation of who is doing what to who
according to
> > NAS to allow the -c to represent a debit within the transformed
rule,
> > just more hopeless arguments from authority: NAS is correct and that
is
> > it. Why is he correct? Only because the mathematics' produces the
same
> > _numerical_ result. If NAS insists I will provide as many examples
of
> > opposing propositions providing exactly the same numerical answer as
he
> > may require to prove to him that the same numerical answer remains
> > insufficient to claim that the rule and the transformed rule
represent
> > the same SELECTIVE EVENT.

> NAS:-
> When did I suggest that -c represents the debit?

JE:-
Please do you own research on what you wrote and then come back with an
apology to sbe. Please note: your integrity hangs on your action in this
regard, i.e. if you do not do so it can be proven that you have no
integrity.

> > > NAS:-
> > > If c is positive in rb>c then c is also
> > > positive in our re-arranged rule -rb<-c. Thus, the positive cost
> > > remains a positive cost, and the altruism remains altruism. There
is
> > no
> > > sleight of the hand by any Enron accountant, no debit has
miraculously
> > > been turned into a credit. c was positive, c is still positive. I
> > don't
> > > know what more I can say.

> > JE:-
> > Just try out for size that "whatever it is that is transferred" to
allow
> > b to be a fitness is actually moving IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION
WITHIN
> > THE TRANSFORMED RULE COMPARED TO THE NON TRANSFORMED RULE.

> NAS:-
> But in deriving the transformed rule we are implicitly assuming that c
> and b and r are fixed quantities?

JE:-
They are. However the movement of resources that underpin these
fitnesses remain FLUID. It just happens that the resource movement that
limits fitness IS CONVENIENTLY DELETED FROM THE RULE.

>snip<

> > JE:-
> > Yes, all refutable theories of nature have to be firstly written
> > entirely in words simply because mathematics has been proven not to
be a
> > self consistent body of knowledge.

> NAS:-
> I suppose you refer to Godel's work? In which case, verbal systems
also
> contain undecideable statements, so I don't see why you should elevate
> words above maths.

JE:-
ONLY WORDS can define absolute assumptions. An absolute assumption is
only ASSUMED not to be relative to anything at all. Please note that an
absolute assumption is NOT an absolute simply because it is just an
assumption. For it to be a scientifically valid assumption it must be
refutable. Once defined IN WORDS an absolute assumption can be
transposed into mathematics as a constant. Mathematics has NO HOPE AT
ALL of separating a variable from a constant all on its own. This
critical difference has to be defined IN WORDS.


> > > snip hopeless rhetoric<

> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > Integrity entirely depends the use of reason to establish
which
> > > > position
> > > > > > stands refuted which is either my position OR the Neo
Darwinian
> > > > > > establishment that you choose to side with. Any evasion of
> > > > refutation
> > > > > > employed by myself, yourself or the Neo Darwinistic
> > establishment
> > > > > > provides proof of a lack of integrity by the evader. Ok?

> > > > > NAS
> > > > > No-K.

> > > > JE:-
> > > > I take the above response to mean "no". It seems to me that NAS
is
> > > > indicating that he holds the Popperian process of refutation in
> > contempt
> > > > which is just as well because only by evading this process can
NAS
> > > > continue to maintain a such hopeless _contradictory_ fitness
> > stance.

> NAS:-
> Just because you name-drop Popper in your gibberish does not mean that
> it is any less gibberish.

JE:-
Stop behaving like a spoilt child who has been protected from reality
for far too long. EITHER agree that your propositions of fitness
accounting re: Hamilton's Rule entirely contradict mine so that
OBVIOUSLY only one of us can be correct and then proceed to test EITHER
proposition to refutation OR throw out the entire process of refutation
(as Dr Hoelzer has done) in order to protect yourself and the gene
centric Neo Darwinistic position you represent from the process of
refutation.

> > > NAS:_
> > > Lets not rush ahead, John. Before tearing down neodarwinism, you
must
> > > first understand what neodarwinism is. You do not understand
> > > neodarwinism. I suggest you do a bit of reading, and then get back
to
> > > us.

> > JE:-
> > "Rush ahead?" Stop again evading the issue and agree OR disagree
that
> > one of our views must refute in favour of another!
> > The validity of Hamilton's Rule represents a very fair test of the
> > validity of Neo Darwinism. EITHER -c within Hamilton's transformed
rule
> > represents a credit OR it represents a debit. I have provided a
detailed
> > proof as to why the -c within -rb<-c can only represent an actor
credit.
> > You provided absolutely nothing except a (hopeless) dictate that it
was
> > an actor debit. Please provide your (entirely missing) PROOF.

> NAS:-
> -c represents the amount that is credited.

JE:-
Yes, but now you have contradicted your previous argument. This means
your argument is refuted.

> NAS:-
> If c is positive (i.e.
> altruism or spite) then the credit -c is a negative quantity. It might
> be preferrable to refer to this negative credit as a debit. I don't
> really care.

JE:-
You "don't really care" ?
So why don't you start your own school of Enron fitness accounting for
evolutionary theory? Sorry, Hamilton et al already has! It has been a
going concern for over 50 years propped up by government funds (of
course).

>snip<

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@xxxxxxxxxx






.

Quantcast