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

[This is a resend. The original appears not to have been posted]

"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> > > You "diagnose" altruism simply by noting
> > > that c and b are both positive.

> > JE:-
> > Incorrect. Altruism can only be diagnosed using the sign of c
> > because it remains entirely _independent_ of the sign of rb. This
> > is so for the following reasons (in order of their priority):-
> > 1) The term "altruism" is only applied to Hamilton's proactive actor

> > because Hamilton specifically designed the rule to be able to
> > demonstrate the evolution of actor altruism (OFA) ...
> > 2) The fitness of both Hamilton's actor and recipients (as just the
> > one group selected entity) remain entirely _independent_ of each
> > other so that each must be _separately_ accounted for.
> [snip some more reasons in the same vein]

> John, your arguments regarding Hamilton are hard to follow because you

> mix together biological arguments (usually reasonable), mathematical
> arguments (too frequently fallacious), and changes to the standard
> definitions.

JE:-
Jim, your claim that mathematical arguments I have presented here are
"too frequently fallacious" only represent divisive evasion on your part
unless you can provide at least one example. Please provide it or
apologise.

In any valid evolutionary theory, e.g. Darwin's, biology and mathematics
join SEAMELESSLY and definitions remain unambiguous. Note: this is NOT
the case for gene centric Neo Darwinism.

Your argument is only consistent to CLAIM 1 which depends entirely on
the fallacious argument that a negative credit is a credit and not a
debit. Such an argument is just a Post Modern deconstruction of
accountancy contrived to allow a debit to become a credit to provide
Enron type fraudulent fitness accounting within Hamilton's Rule.

The focus of this debate is on the movement of x resources that realise
the fitness gain/loss in each case. Do you agree or disagree that
within -rb<-c x resources move from the recipients to the actor by the
actor? Please do not evade this question.

Here are all the choices open to you: EITHER refute CLAIM 2 in favour
of CLAIM 1, refute CLAIM 1 in favour of CLAIM 2, present altogether
another claim OR simply throw out the Popperian process of refutation .


I REPEAT:
If you multiply both sides of Hamilton's Rule by -1 you produce the
transformed rule -rb<-c which I argue remains mathematically equivalent
BUT NOT BIOLOGICALLY EQIVALENT to rb>c. I do not ask you to agree that
this is the case. I simply ask you to understand the proposition I have
put forward.

My supporting argument remains: within the transformed rule resources x
move from Hamilton's group selected recipients to the actor which
represents the OPPOSITE direction of their movement within the
untransformed rule rb>c. JUST THIS ONE ACT ENTIRELY REVERSES CAUSE AND
EFFECT WHILE AT THE SAME TIME LEAVING THE TWO RULES MATHEMATICALLY
EQIVALENT. This means the mathematics cannot discriminate which way the
resources moved, only that they constituted x resources. The cost -c
within -rb<-c must have the value 1+A and not just 1 because A
represents a previously unaccounted for additional fitness that must be
credited to the actor before any inclusive fitness had been attempted.

NAS's redefinition of a -credit to be credit and not a debit (similarly
re debits) is just a futile attempt to evade entering A into the account
of the actor. IOW, the missing amount A represents all the hard evidence
that is required to refute CLAIM 1 in favour of CLAIM 2.

> Here I am complaining about your attempt to redefine "altruism" away
> from the standard sociobiological meaning.

JE:-
But only an AMBIGUOUS STANDARD MEANING existed: the "mathematical"
meaning of "altruism" which only employs the sign of c within just a
100% relative proposition; hence this discussion.

Please supply any example of a *WRITTEN* definition for altruism
employed by Hamilton's et al.

> You are incorrect to state
> that I was incorrect.

JE:-
Incorrect. This is because ANY event is either independent or dependent.
It remains basic to the logic of the rule that rb and c must represent
INDEPENDENT fitness events. If they only represent the same fitness
event Hamilton's defined altruistic actor can validly donate to just
himself, i.e. Scrooge becomes the most absurd defined altruist that ever
lived because he can be validly defined by Hamilton to have "donated"
everything to himself where he is related to himself r=1.

> What you OUGHT to be saying is two things:
> 1. Sociobiology created confusion when it fixed upon the word
"altruism"
> for the situation of positive c and positive b. (Tough, John.
> Live with it, rather than creating more confusion by trying to
> insert your own definition of "altruism" into the discussion.)

JE:-
Incorrect. I have had to revise the ambiguous term "altruism" to
actually mean Organism Fitness Altruism (OFA) so that Hamilton's
ambiguous term "altruism" can now make evolutionary theory sense.

> 2. We need a term for the concept of positive c, regardless of what
> happens with b. (Ok, John, I can see how you might want such a
term.
> How about we use the term "self-sacrificing" for an action by the
> proactive actor which decreases his own fitness. Then you can say
> that "altruism" and "spite" are both special cases of
"self-sacrifice.
> You can also say that "selfishness" and "mutualism" are both
special
> cases of "self-enhancement".)

JE:-
Call it "a pink puppy" for all I care. This is NOT just a discussion
about the difference between meaningful and just hopelessly misleading
semantics, it is about AN EMPIRICALLY BASED MEANING. Your term
"self-sacrificing" entirely misrepresents a possible biological reality.
It is absurd for anybody to claim that just because Hamilton's actor
parts with x resources reducing the actors fitness by c, that this
somehow proves actor altruism. In order to prove that this was a
donation you must firstly refute the claim that movement of x resources
to rb group selected recipients via Hamilton's only proactive actor
(which reduced the Darwinian fitness of that actor by c) was not a
mutualistic INVESTMENT. Yourself, NAS and the gene centric Neo Darwinian
establishment have singularly failed to establish that c within rb>c was
not a selfish actor investment. This REALLY matters because it is just
absurd to define any investment as an altruistic act! Using such a
definition, the richer Bill Gates gets the more of an "altruist" he
actually is.

>snip<

> Incidentally, I find your argument unconvincing - that "altruism"
> shouldn't care about the sign of b because it is the "actor" who is
> deemed "altruistic" and b refers to what happens to someone else.
> Consider the word "murderer". It also is applied to the actor, but it

> is applied only if the victim dies. We don't call it "murder" if the
> recipient (victim) survives.

JE:-
All your argument can do is prove that an interdependent social exchange
has taken place. It does not prove that any of the actors were not
independent, i.e. interdependence is not dependence. If the victim does
not die then the act may represent criminal assault by the actor which
must exclude criminal assault by the victim. If the criminal act was
mutual then no "victim" existed. The salient point is NOT that a heinous
assault has taken place, it is the fact that the actor was NOT assaulted
but a victim WAS. The polarity of such events and not just the event
itself represents the ethical basis of civilised law because it requires
the assumption of _independent_, actors. In your example nobody can
argue that the hapless victim was unethical only because the perpetrator
of the assault was unethical simply because they remain ethically
independent acts. A person cannot violate the human rights of another
because each person is defined under law to represent an independent but
not a dependent unit of ethics even when they remain socially
interdependent. This being the case it is only ethical to use force
against another within a civilised society to defend yourself and human
rights in general. In a communist/fascist society the group and not the
individual become the unit of ethics allowing unethical force to be
applied against individuals, e.g. the many heinous assaults and murders
of innocent individuals which were historically documented in both.

The evolution of ANY social action must minimally represent an exchange
between at least two _independent_ actors. This assumption of
independence is so obvious that it mostly remains unnoticed. There are 9
possible outcomes for a matrix of 3 different outcomes +,-,0 per
independent actor where + represents a relative gain, - the relative
loss and 0 no gain or loss, for EACH of a minimum of TWO FITNESS
INDEPENDENT actors.

++,+-,+0,-+,--,-0,0+,0-,00

Only 3 are fitness mutualised events: ++, --, 00. I will argue that only
these three are actually definitive. I also claim that only ++ can be
selected *FOR*. What I am leading up to here is CLAIM 3:

Both rb>c and -rb<-c actually represent OFM.

However this claim firstly requires the refutation of CLAIM 1 in favour
of CLAIM 2, i.e. it is just pointless putting forward CLAIM 3 until
CLAIM 1 OR CLAIM 2 stand refuted.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@xxxxxxxxxx










>
>




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Most important paper in evolutionary biology
    ... > and refutation just doesn't apply to this kind of question. ... The term "altruism" as employed by Hamilton et al remains ambiguous. ... unambiguously defined as a specific FITNESS REDUCTION. ... actor makes a loss. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Hamiltons Rule In The Mirror
    ... For the rule in the mirror ... >> from the actor. ... reducing their fitness while removing this harm from the actor." ... to support organism fitness altruism about 40 years ago after group ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Applying TDF (was understanding y)
    ... >> K is TDF as you well know. ... > of the population who neither practice altruism nor benefit from it. ... TDF is the Total Darwinian Fitness of Hamilton's single proactive actor ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Theories, models, and simplifications!
    ... >> paid by the actor in forgone normal reproductions? ... fitness of the actor, ... > nor received altruism. ... fitness supposition with Darwin's ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • RE: Hamiltons rule
    ... the evolution of altruism within the biological sciences. ... r some measure of how related the actor is to the recipients. ... invisible transfer of x resources from the actor to the recipients. ... All epistasis is deleted from the rule including critical gene fitness ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)