Re: Hamilton's rule



"Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-

> > JE:-
> > It remains impossible to use HR "properly at the end of an analysis, for
> > conceptualising results" if this conceptualsation requires a valid WHY
> > proposition. This is because HR cannot distinguish between "altruism"
> > (specifically organism fitness altruism) and "selfishness" (specifically
> > organism fitness selfishness) and cannot address, at all, "mutualism"
> > (specifically organism fitness mutualism) for the following reasons:
> >
> > 1) The rule has no constant algebraic term.
> >
> > 2) The variables r and b remain dependent (on each other) algebraic
> > variables.
> >
> > 3) The only independent algebraic variable within the rule is c.


> Hmmm. Perhaps we should write the rule as
> b > c/r
> That way b becomes an independent variable and the variables r and c
> become dependent upon each other.
> But we will have to rely on Edser to tell us the biological meaning
> of this change in the form of the mathematics.

>snip smiley because Jim has very little to smile about<

Why can't you work that out for yourself? Is reasoning within biological
science too difficult for a mathematician?

Rational Interpretation of b>c/r:

Hamilton's Rule is still without a constant term so that it remains entirely
relative, i.e. it is still restricted to just the same two contrary WHY
propositions which remain: "altruism" and "selfishness" where the rule still
cannot even differentiate between them.

Just the same two relative opposite empirical events can be described:

1) The proactive actor donates x resources.
2) The proactive actor steals x resources.

The rule is still restricted to just the one independent variable where this
still remains insufficient to describe any valid proposition as to why
Hamilton's allele spreads on only a relative basis. However in this instance
altruism becomes unconditionally described via any positive value of b and
selfishness by any negative value of b. That is all.

As a useful exercise why don't you describe the empirical events and the
rational structure of:

r > c/b

"A true friend stabs you in the front", Oscar Wilde :-)

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxx


















.