Re: Underestimating 'r'
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 01:33:52 -0400 (EDT)
name_and_address_supplied wrote:-
> > JE:-
> > Below is something that NAS wrote a while back that would be REALLY
> FUNNY if
> > it wasn't so sinister:-
> > > > NAS:-
> > > > Example: an actor's fitness would be 1 in the absence of an
> > > > altruistic act, and altruism reduces the actor's fitness to 0.9.
> > > > Thus, we can equivalently say that the actor has been debited an
> > > > amount 0.1 (1 -
> > > 0.1
> > > > = 0.9) or that the actor has been credited an amount -0.1 (1 + -0.1
> > > > = 0.9). Mathematically, these are equivalent and meaningful
> > > > approaches. Biologically, nothing has changed. So what is your
> > > > problem?
> > JE:-
> > Dear oh dear...
> > NAS is actually arguing that "we can equivalently say that the actor has
> > been debited an amount 0.1 (1 - 0.1 = 0.9) or that the actor has been
> > credited an amount -0.1 (1 + -0.1 = 0.9)" which is just the Enron
> accounting
> > fraud all-over-again. NAS is attempting to write up an actor credit as
> just
> > a convenient-for-him actor debit so that NAS can falsely continue to
> argue
> > that within -rb<-c the "-c" represents an actor debit and therefore
> actor
> > altruism and not an actor credit necessarily producing actor
> selfishness.
> I can't believe I am being drawn into this again, but here goes.
JE:-
Only one of us can be correct. I will be happy to admit that I a wrong if
you can prove it. Hover, I very much doubt that this sentiment will be
returned by yourself. Since the proposition I am putting forward: Hamilton's
Rule cannot be employed empirically because it has no fitness frame of
reference can be refuted, you should have no problem refuting it and proving
your case.
> The condition -rb<-c is equivalent to the condition rb>c, i.e. for any
> given r, b and c values, iff the former is satisfied then the latter is
> also satisfied. I don't know why you prefer to use -rb<-c as your form
> of Hamilton's rule, ...
JE:-
1) I have never stated that I "prefer" either rule.
2) This dispute is not over the mathematical validity of the statement that
both rules remain mathematically identical it concerns the proposition that
they do not represent THE SAME EMPIRICAL EVENTS even if they are the same
mathematical events. Is this clear? Please indicate if you understand the
proposition even if you do not agree with it?
> but I am prepared to accept that it is valid.
JE:-
NAS has now decided to withdrawn his mathematically nonsensical argument
that multiplying the entire rule by -1 is not exactly the same as
multiplying both sides of the rule by -1.
Well, at least that is a start....
> Now,
> the sign of b and c determine the nature of the social trait.
JE:_
Absolutely not. The sign of b has nothing to do with measuring the EMPIRICAL
action of Hamilton's only proactive actor which ALONE determines the social
trait. EITHER the proactive actor reduces or increases its own fitness where
this can only be measured by the sign of c. You cannot validly argue that
the actor remains altruistic even after it has increased its own fitness,
i.e. ANY negative c, no exceptions, or remain selfish even when it reduces
its own fitness, i.e. ANY positive c, no exceptions. The sign of c remains
UNCONDITIONAL for the action of Hamilton's only proactive actor.
Please list the exceptions you argue allow the contradiction that a positive
c can somehow indicate actor selfishness and a negative c somehow indicate
actor altruism.
> We have
> four possibilities (excluding nonzero values): altruism (b>0,c>0),
> spite (b<0,c>0), mutualism (b>0,c<0) and selfishness (b<0,c<0).
JE:-
The definition of altruism and the condition for it spreading are TWO
ENTIRELY SEPARATE ISSUES and not just the one same, issue. You can only
employ the sign of the multiple rb, i.e. you cannot employ the sign of b all
on its own. Because r and b are multiplied the variable b cannot be
separated from the variable r. The value and sign of b remains 100%
dependent on the value and sign of r and vice versa. OTOH the variable c is
NOT multiplied by anything at all so it ALONE can act as an INDEPENDENT
variable. All you can do with the sign of rb is employ it to determine if
the defined altruism, which is ANY, i.e. a totally UNCONDITIONAL negative c,
can spread or not. The definition of the social trait by the sign of c and
measuring if by comparing it to rb remain two entirely separate issues.
> Given
> this, your argument above that "-c represents . . . actor altruism"
> just simply does not make sense, and it is certainly not an argument
> that I have ever uttered.
JE:-
ONLY the actor is proactive so only what the actor does EMPOIRICALLY can
determine Hamilton's social trait. IF the actor GAINS in fitness for any
reason at all and regardless of the outcome, THEN the actor must be
classified as selfish. OTOH IF the actor LOSES in fitness for any reason at
all and regardless of the outcome, THEN the actor must be classified as
altruistic. Anything else is just an attempt to redefine black as white.
The outcome of that trait and not the definition of what the trait actually
is can be determined by Hamilton's Rule but only on a 100% relative basis.
This means the rule can determine when b rb>c, rb=c or rb<c but it cannot
say WHY these events are occurring. Like a lot of mathematicians here you
confuse "HOW" with "WHY".
> snip<
> Also on credits and debits: as I explained before, I was defining a
> credit as "that which is added", so that if one's fitness is reduced
> then we could describe this as a NEGATIVE fitness credit.
JE:_
No. It is a DEBIT PURE AND SIMPLE.
>snip rhetoric<
> But your
> claims about Enron accounting are unfounded.
JE:-
No. Enron accountants attempted to write up debits as credits just like you
attempted to do. Your view that a reduction of one's fitness can validly
constitute "negative credit" i.e. some "other sort" of a credit and not
simply a DEBIT PURE AND SIMPLE, constitutes an act of fraud/incompetence or
both, in order to defend Hamilton's Rule.
What you refuse to admit to is that within -rb<-c Hamilton's proactive actor
actually reverses what it is doing by 180 degrees, i.e. exactly the same
actor in exactly the same event now becomes a RECIPIENT of a fitness
INCREASE as measured by any negative c. The mathematics is simply not up to
the task of accurately describing empirical events, that is all. In -rb<-c
the actor selfishly steals x resources form the passive recipients instead
of donating x resources to them. The actor subsequently turns these stolen
resources into the fitness increase A for itself. As far as only defining
the empirical action taken by the actor, the outcomes of the action ,
comparing rb>c or -rb<-c does not matter at all.
The contradiction that Hamilton's Rule always produces empirically is that
-c within -rb<-c and +c within +rb>+c must act SIMULTANEOUSLY, i.e. the
EMPIRICAL action of Hamilton's proactive actor constitute two simultaneous
CONTRARY events, i.e. BOTH a gain AND a loss for the actor which is just an
absurdity.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Underestimating 'r'
- From: name_and_address_supplied
- Re: Underestimating 'r'
- Prev by Date: Re: Musings about the Cambrian Explosion
- Next by Date: Re: Singularity essay
- Previous by thread: Re: Underestimating 'r'
- Next by thread: Re: Underestimating 'r'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
