Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 08:04:43 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote:

Er.. we all are. Its explained in "The selfish gene" by Richard
Dawkins. Its a basic tenet of the modern theory of evolution.

I know, Kev. I read it years ago. That is to say, I read 80% or so of
it before ripping it in half and tossing it out of the window of the
train I was travelling on at the time,

Oh, so you didn't understand it properly then?

much to the surprise of my
fellow passengers. Rather annoyingly, I can't now recall what exactly
Dawkins had said at that point that provoked such a reaction on my
part. The only other book I ever tore up was the Count of Monte
Cristo, two pages before the end. But that's by the by. Anyway, I went
on to read Dawkins' magnum opus, the Blind Watchmaker in which he
refined and to a great extent, retracted on his selfish gene theory.

No he didn't. Of course, people tighten up or refine their original
ideas a bit, but the fundamental principle is as sound today as when it
was proposed. Its basic underpinnings are a tautology, therefore cannot
be wrong.

It's a magnificent book and probably the most important one anyone
could ever read in their lives. I suggest you get a copy and study it
carefully.

Err... already have it and read it. I didn't think it was as good. A lot
of repeats of the selfish gene material. I would use all your words
above to "the selfish gene" itself.

While you're at it, get hold of Geoffrey Miller's the
Mating Mind which is his brilliant refinement of the handicap
principle in sexual selection - Darwin's 'other' theory.

The handicap principle is not really another principle. Its all
accounted for in the *general* theory of replicators. Its just a matter
of how the final numbers comes out in a detailed analysis. (see below)


Not at all. You must be one of the deluded ones. That is, you haven't
really thought about or studied evolution in enough detail. I am sure
you are genuine in this belief, but you are wrong. Of course, if you
are a believer in god or some other religion, then nothing I can say
will convince you otherwise.

I've read a great deal more about evolution than you might imagine,
Kev. Once again you fail to recognise that others might actually know
more about any given subject than you do. When this happens you end up
looking really stoopid by virtue of your monumental pomposity and
supercilliousness.

I can't agree with this. It would appear that you don't understand the
theory. If you did, you could not have possible made the statements you
did about not being selfish. Its not possible. Its simple math. (see
below)

I agree I can appear rather arrogant, but I do not do this for all
issues. Only things I really know about.


You miss the point. The term is *net* benefit or advantage. You need
to look at this *much* more deeply. Its only an illusion that one
does things for the benefit of others.

No. Dawkins recanted this. Read BW and MM.

This is nonsense. He didn't.

One must appreciate that Darwin did not know the specific mechanisms of
evolution, and Dawkins, did not at first see the *general* bigger,
picture of what genes were. The true "global" theory of "life" is not
organisms, or genes or menes, its about Replicators. The Replicator is
an *abstract* object from which general properties can be deduced about
any object that satisfies the axioms of Replicators. The theory of
replicators is correct by construction.


I have explained this quite a few times. Its based on the theory of
replicators.

Axioms:

[patronising lecture snipped]

If you actually understood those axioms, its a cut and dried case. The
axioms lead to some absolute conclusions. *Anything* satisfying those
axioms *must* result in its conclusions. All one has to do is to show
some particular object satisfies those axioms. Its like mathematical
group theory. One you show something satisfies the group axioms, its a
done deal.

Look, given sets of Replicators, if any replicator is consistently
better at replicating than another, given enough time, those particular
Replicators *have* to dominate to the exclusion of all others. For
example, a 1% advantage over 1000 generations, is 20,959. So if the
populations of the replicators were initially equal, after 1000
generations, the ratio would be 20,959/1. If a particular replicator,
happens to aid another replicator'ss replication, at the net expense of
its own, it must, by simple mathematics, be completely overrun by the
replicators it has aided. Thus true and absolute "selfishness" can not
be sustained in a system of a group of Replicators.

The theory also explains why people don't like to be thought of as
selfish. Its abundantly clear that helping others, e.g in a group, is
beneficial to the individual members own replication. For example, who
has the best chance for avoiding a kick-in on the way home from the pub.
A lone walker, or the gang of 5 skinheads.

The obvious issue with being too selfish, is that if you don't
reciprocate help, people wont give you help back, such that you cannot
replicate as well as those that do cooperate together. Indeed, this is
an example of a "handicap". A first order mathematical analysis would
indicate that helping others would be detrimental, i.e. that paricular
trait is a handicap, when in fact a detailed mathematical analysis can
show that net benefits are achieved from that trait. Its the final
probability of improved replication that matters.

Fundamentally, we *all* *have* to be selfish at the root level. We are
the result of the most successful Replicators, from millions and
millions of years of evolution. It can't be any other way.
Unfortunately, most can't like this simple fact, so deny it.


Whilst, I do agree that Win is very knowledgeable and an expert, I am
also an expert.

Blowing your own trumpet ain't going to get you anywhere, m8. When the
likes of Win, Jim

You obviously have not read many of my posts:-)

and Tony etc acknowledge your greatness, I'll
happily accept it.

Fortunately, I need no confirmation of my abilities.

Sadly, none of us can be objective about ourselves.

No. Some can, some can't. I know what I know and I know what I don't
know. e.g. http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

Who is tony? And, yes, it would be fair to say Win and Jim (Thompson) do
indeed accept me as an individual with rather significant knowledge and
experience. It would also be fair to say that I have corrected them at
times, and supplied them with knowledge also unknown to them, as I have
likewise gained a few bits and bobs from them.


I have been doing this rather a long time as well you
know. The fact that I am not an academic is not relevant. In all
honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue
design, although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all.

Woops! Bit of a step back for you there, then, Kev. There was me
thinking you did. :-)

Does Win know more
than me? Unlikely. Or do I know more than Win. Unlikely. However, we
may well know different things.

Well I can't disagree with you on that last sentence.

And that illustrates the point very well. Linearity is up for grabs.
Just what is the term "linear" being applied to. The class c
amplifier is non linear in detailed operation but the envelope of
the output is still linearly related to the modulating input signal.

Excellent! Now why didn't you just say that in the first place?

There is simple too much information. One just assumes that people are
using the same understanding for terms in a given context. e.g.
saturation in one context means normal operating conditions, in another,
it isn't. Indeed, in another it means the transistor got wet!

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.