Re: Minimization principal for evolution



"Peter F" <fell_spamtrap_in@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

That is, anything other than perhaps
minimization of a lack of Edserian maximization. :-)
Apropos which, I interpret Edserian maximization
as synonymous with any and all instances of lineage-lengthening
lifetime successes by individual geno/phenotypes.

JE:-
Unless you break this up into independent fitness events you will
inevitably
fall into the group selective trap.

I am deliberately trying to force myself to think realistically
[including to maintain a "tolerance principled"
(part of the same old 'Explanatory Philosophical Type') attitude]
enough
to avoid tumbling into such traps of logic.

JE:-
Then how do you cut up into _independent_ units of selection "any and
all
instances of lineage-lengthening lifetime successes by individual
geno/phenotypes"?

I don't.

JE:-
Then you have no other choice but to be caught in the group selection trap.

Could it be that I am even less keen on mathematical oversimplifications
of how we evolved than you are? :-)

JE:-
I have no problem with these as long as they are not misused, i.e. an
irrefutable mathematical simplification is not allowed to compete against
and replace the refutable theory it was simplified from (the parent theory).


My aim became and has since been:
To be realistically anti-"septal" [and obviously never antiseptic :-)]

JE:-
My aim is to be clear, empirically testable and therefore entirely
unambiguous. This requires me to be 100% non self contradictory.

Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF) is the only empirically based maximand that
exists within evolutionary theory. It can be tested to refutation using just
a simple thought experiment. No other point in the organism cycle
(fertilized egg to fertile adult) can halt Darwinian evolution entirely when
it is held constant except just the END of that cycle: the fertile form
level of selection. Only if the total number of fertile forms reproduced
into one population by each parent is held constant can Darwinian evolution
be 100% halted only leaving random processes to provide variation within
that population.


Peter,
It seems to me you spin an unintelligible web of acronyms in order to avoid
clarity and testability, i.e. you seem to be hiding contradictions away in
acronyms like gene centric Neo Darwinists hide contradictions away in their
simplified/over simplified mathematics.



in how I think
(i.e. to stop myself from compartmentalizing too much);
To maintain a flexible (not flacidly flexible but elastically so)
individual-centered philosophical focus (since, as you would appreciate,
I have found that it allows *me* an ideally poised
position of overview and a *complementary kind* of unifying
understanding);
And, to employ an as 'smeared-out'
as (but no more tenuous than) necessary conceptual 'sorting strategy'
(for dealing with relevant features and factors of What Is going on).

JE:-
You might like to discuss the limits of 100% "fuzzy logic" with Dr Hoelzer.
If you do, you can only expect 100% fuzzy replies :-)

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxx








.