john edser

JM:-
Ok. If posters label al quotes with initials (nature does it with genes
using methylation imprinting) this mistake could not happen.


JE:-
No, exactly the same FITNESS events do NOT happen using both rules. As a
part of the proof that this is indeed the case I will annotate Jim's
reply with appropriate comments and propose an empirically based
experiment to illustrate the correctness of my argument.

JE:-
That "something" is EXACTLY: a limiting resource TRANSFER. The reason
Jim fails to specifically define his "mystical" something is because he
does not wish to acknowledge that a fully REVERSIBLE resource transfer
and its effects must be accounted for in each rule to provide the same
inclusive fitness result. This transfer *CAN* move in opposing
directions:

1) From the actor to the recipient.

2) From the recipient to the actor.

JE:-
Jim has failed to define the _biological_ units of c. These remains
EXACTLY: entire organism reproductions which must be accounted to the
actor as a DEBIT whenever c is positive simply because any positive c,
using EITHER RULE can only represent an organism reproductive reduction
accounted to the actor. OTOH whenever c is negative the actor must be
credited again in either rule simply because additional organisms are
now reproduced by the actor. The same logic applied to the recipients
which however remain group selected and not individually selected. The
meaning of the negative and positive signs in each rule *DO NOT DIFFER*
even when only fitnesses >0 are allowed.

JE:-
Yes, because a fitness represents an absolute assumption of nature b
cannot be <0 so that a negative b can only represent a reduction of a
count of organisms reproduced by a number of recipients (thus
representing a group selective recipient fitness) where the smallest
group selective total b that is possible is zero and not less than zero.
Another common well known example of an absolute assumption is c within
E=Mc^2 which cannot be <0 because it represents Einstein's inductive
absolute assumption of the maximal velocity of light in a vacuum from
which his proposition of "Special Relativity" can be deduced. Note also
that because c in Hamilton's Rule is a contesting fitness assumption to
rb it also represents an absolute assumption so c cannot be > cmax, i.e.
the number of reproductions forgone cannot be more than the reproductive
total of the actor.


JE:-
While it is true that the fitness of an individual cannot be measured
_after_ a supposed inclusive fitness event within nature they can be
simulated and exactly measured under laboratory conditions using a
natural population and not just an oversimplified model.

AN EMPIRICAL EXPRIMENT TO VERIFY THE BIOLOGICAL EVENTS THAT OCCUR WITHIN
HAMILTON'S RULE:

Empirically it is possible to set up an experiment using clones (to
allow zero heritable fitness differences) where the actor clone is a
different clone to the recipient clone so that the actor is related r
IBD to all recipients. A control group is firstly set up whereby an
actor and recipient reproductive response to an exactly the same
quantity of provisioning resource x is measured within the same
environment.

One actor and a set of recipients are set up using as identical
provisioned environments as is possible (call it environment q).
Resource exchange experiments, where a basic limiting resource is
transferred that has previously been measured to reduce/increase
reproduction for both clone types in environment q, are set up. Using a
number of repeated experiments, the experimenter would move x of a
certain resource from the actor to the group of recipients OR in the
opposite direction representing the action of the actor who alone is
proactive within Hamilton's Rule. This would enable an empirical measure
of rb and c in each case. This replicates the biological action that is
only implied within the Hamilton's Rule because the critical movement of
resource x _either way_ remains invisible.
The non transformed rule (rb>c) can only be experimentally replicated
via the transfer of x resources from the actor to the recipients via the
experimenter. This would cost the actor a number of organism
reproductions (reproductions foregone), i.e. the actors organism
reproductive total which is always remains missing from the rule would
be decreased by c. To balance the actors total fitness reduction, x
resources must have been received via a number of recipients from the
actor resulting in an extra number of reproductions for these recipients
as one whole but not necessarily as a mean gain per recipient. Note that
this can mean some recipients may suffer a loss in total fitness even if
the group as a whole provides an absolute increase proving group
selection. The result is that a gross cost fitness DEBIT costing x
resources is accounted to the actor but a gross cost fitness CREDIT is
accounted to Hamilton's group of recipients as one selectee.


The transformed rule (-rb<-c), which is still argued by JM and NAS to
represent exactly the same FITNESS EVENT as the non transformed rule but
is argued by myself to be an opposing fitness event, requires the
experimenter to REMOVE x resources from rb recipients transferring x to
the actor (a transfer x resources in exactly the reverse direction
compared to the non transformed rule) where fitness always remains >0.
The now entirely _transparent_ transfer of hidden x resources, which
this time moves FROM the recipients TO the actor must result in an
increase of reproduction by the actor but a decrease in the recipients
representing the only possible way -c and -rb within -c<-rb can be
interpreted _empirically_ in A SELF CONSISTENT WAY.

As I have previously argued using either rule: if the cost to the actor
becomes negative (-c) this can only represent a gross cost CREDIT
because the number of organisms reproduced by the actor must _increase_.
OTOH just to pay for this increase the number of organisms reproduced by
the rb recipient group must decrease providing a gross cost recipient
DEBIT. The fact that no fitness can be validly <0 does not change this
description. For JM and NAS to prove their contention that -c in the
transformed rule and +c in the non transformed rule represent exactly
the same fitness event (similarly for -rb and +rb within each rule) they
have to prove that no x transfer of resources in the opposite direction
can happen within Hamilton's Rule. To prove this, they must
mathematically depict the reverse transfer of x resources as a DIFFERENT
mathematical rule which I argue they cannot/will refuse, to do.

JE:-
Organism fitness selfishness (OFS) and organism fitness altruism (OFA)
only represent RELATIVELY opposed fitness events. BOTH of these relative
events remain absolute opposites to just organism fitness mutualism
(OFM).

You appear to have confounded a relative opposite proposition with an
absolute opposite proposition. As an example: If I pay you $50 then I am
debited with $50 dollars but you are credited with $50. OTOH if you pay
me $50 I can credited with that amount but you are debited. In all cases
$50 exists using relative opposing arguments. However if I burn $50
nobody has it, i.e. it represents the absolute opposite to both relative events.


JE:-
As just relatively opposed events "selfishness" and "altruism" are
mathematically _equal_ as in: the $50 I pay you is equal to the $50 you
receive.

Mathematically:

If:
s = selfishness
a = altruism

Then:
s = a
s-a = 0

However if s varies with a in a non additive way (which is the case with
Hamilton's Rule)

Then

s = Ka

K represents a critical constant which is absolutely required to
determine the cause of any totally relative event (just a comparison of
two things without a frame of reference to make the comparison). Note
that any cause of such an event is a WHY proposition and not just a HOW
proposition, i.e. you have to argue WHY the gene has spread and not just
HOW it may have spread within Hamilton's Rule.


JE:-
You have to define both in an EMPIRICALLY BASED WAY. This has never been
bothered with. All that has been done so far is to fashion non
empirically based models which delete the total fitness of the actor
(the required K constant). This has resulted is totally specious
hypothesis as to WHY Hamilton's gene may have spread where OFS cannot
even be distinguished from OFA! Even more disgracefully OFM is not
represented AT ALL within Hamilton's rationale when it remains falsely
claimed that it is.

I argue that IN ALL CASES, the gene can only spread using OFM where
argued OFA using Hamilton's Rule actually represents an OFM investment
and not an OFA donation.


JE:-
But that "help" may be provided by a thug wearing a tee shirt depicting
a very large crocodile with the words "TRUST ME", written on it i.e.
that "help" may represent a idiot mathematician who cannot tell the
difference between thief and a donor when the result is numerically the
same.

All r IBD can do is _decrease_ the extent of the fitness conversion from
x resources, it cannot increase it. The most r can reduce any fitness
benefit is to reduce the benefit to be ALMOST zero where r IBD must be

r=1. More importantly than just about anything else r combines the
organism reproduction of each recipient so that it transforms it from
fitness independent to fitness dependent (from individually selected to
group selected).

JE:-
"Additive inverse of that loss"? Why not just argue your conception of a
cost represents a-fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden "loss" just like
Enron accountants...

You have tortured yourself into a corner simply because you will not
argue in a self consistent way. You must argue that the "-" and "+" in
-c and +c always indicate the same fitness events IN EITHER RULE. Your
argument that "-" in one rule is the same as "+" in the other is just a contradiction.

a

the

goes".

which

JE:-
They were never clarified. An "Additive inverse of that loss" is NOT a
"clarification"!?!

I am simply attempting to get you think for yourself. However you appear
determined to ape the status quo by employing hidden contradictions in
the vain hope that nobody will notice. They HAVE been NOTICED. You still
claim to be a Popperian. If you evade the issue of refuting your own
argument then your integrity (like NAS's) is threatened.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au