Formulating a bet was Re: [extropy-chat] Science and Fools etc

[Brett Paatsch]

On Wednesday, March 16, 2005 Hal Finney wrote:

[Now that Damien has commented I want to return to this
early post]

> Brett Paatsch writes:
>> I wonder whether it would be possible for you, Robin, Damien
>> and I to agree on a the structure of a bet (like in idea futures) that
>> would judge the question "can cryonics work?" in such a way that
>> we did not disagree after it had been judged.
>>
>> Its seems that you and Robin hold that it might be feasible and
>> Damien (if I am not mistaken ...) and I hold that it is not feasible.

>> I wonder if it is the sort of question that we could formute into a bet.
>>
>> All of us respect science. All of us respect logic. All of us speak
>> English. All of us, I think would accept that science, logic and
>> language are the relevant domains and that there are English
>> speaking, scientifically literate and logical people that can judge
>> things in these domains under some circumstances.
>>
>> I wonder if we could formulate a bet and agree in advance on what
>> sort of third-party judging process would be involved in determining
>> "the truth".
>>
>> And if we could not, I wonder why not.

Hal wrote

> What if I were to define "cryonics can work" as something like, a
> person frozen with today's technology is successfully revived within,
> say, 100 years, with substantially identical memories and personality.
> I would give this odds of about 1 in 100.
>
> I know, based on our earlier discussions, that you have particular
> views about the nature of identity which might make you question
> whether this is a useful definition of cryonics "working".  You might
> be concerned that even if someone passed this kind of objective test
> on revival, that he wasn't really the same person.  If you can come up
> with an alternative objective formulation, I'd be interested in hearing 
> it.
> I'd also be curious to know what you think the odds are of it "working"
> according to my definition, even if you don't agree that it is a good
> definition.

In a real money version of idea futures I'd be interested in taking you
up on your bet but I'd have the following issues with it which I wonder
if we can address together (also with Robin if he is interested).

1) 100 years is too long for me to have to wait to get a financial return
on investment. I'd want to have at least a chance to get a return sooner
than in 100 years. This would be possible if there was a judging process
that examined the issue of the bet yearly with the possibility of the judges
concluding that the issue was already settled in the negative on either
scientific or (more likely in the short term) on logical grounds.

2) Robin said "I'd want to be clear if uploading counts as revival, but
otherwise, sure I'd accept many third party judgements."

Well I have no problem with the judges being permitted to have regard
to uploading and to arguments for it, (and against), I would have a
problem with them being required to pre-accept that uploading is
possible. I think that the second would both stack the judging process
unfairly and make the chances of my getting a payoff from betting in the
short term much harder and thus less attractive for me in terms of
return on investment.

I'd be looking to two possible means of profiting from exposure to
the market.  The first being to get a quick knock out ruling from the
judges at an annual deliberation on logical grounds. (If you think that
might be an impossible or unrealistic aspiration on my part then I'd
ask you to consider how it might be that someone or ones (plural)
like Damien might not end up on the judging panel when we are
picking judges whose views are not known to us but whose
competencies are). The second being to attack the market price by
bringing in scientific evidence that would weight against the technical
feasibility.

3)  Whilst I respect Hal for wanting odds of about 1 in 100. And
I would have put the odds at less than 1 in 100 myself. There is
not a lot of distance between 0 in 100 and 1 in 100 for a payoff
to be achieved by either party. We'd need to have a mechanism
that makes differences on less than 1 in 100 have a financial
return. [ Were this bet to be realised and others to join in in a
manner like the Foresight Exchange I'd be concerned that Hal
and Robin might be competing with me to taking some of the
money from the more bullish folk, when clearly that money
is rightfully destined to be mine ;-)  Bad joke. ]

Why am I wanting to do this, to run through this process of
trying to formulate a bet when at this stage there is no real
money idea futures market to bet on?

Four reasons.

First, I want to see in a practical way if Robin is right in his
view that this sort of thing (cryonics) can practically be
judged. I really like Robin's idea futures idea but I don't
completely trust that it will work in practice as well as it
seems to on paper - running through this exercise should
help to see how well a judging process can be arrived at.

Two, I respect Hal and Robin quite a lot based on what
I have read that they have written. I am genuinely interested
in the mechanisms by which two such capable folk could
look at an issue like this and still disagree with me. I think I
suspect that in formulating a bet and considering the judging
process that Hal and Robin's assessment of the probability
will move towards zero. If I am self-deceived on this I am
genuinely self-deceived.

Three, having a well worded and structured bet on this
topic would be useful. Its the sort of bet that could be easily
made real on a real money idea futures market once one
is able to be set up. And Hal and Robin through their
experience with Foresight Exchange amongst other things
would both have some skill in setting up a judgeable bet.
This is by no means the easiest bet to set up a judgement
process on. But I have some experience with legal contracts
and I know that it is possible to set up such things as dispute
resolution procedures that can avoid legal process costs in
commercial contracts.

Four, I live in a world where judgements that impact on me
are made all the time by other people with whom I do not
agree. (Legislators and policy makers come readily to mind).
My money and time can be wasted when those judgements
are made badly. I would not be a comfortable innocent
person if I were ever accused of a crime and placed in front
of a jury as I would be afraid that the jury would find me guilty
by error. Yet I am an optimist to some extent. I think rational
people and judges can be found if some effort is made to
give the rational nobler side of people a fighting chance
to come out.  Give humans an even chance, put the incentives
in the right places, get the systems set up right, and I reckon
together we will get a lot more right than we get wrong. We
don't have to eliminate the tendencies to self-deception altogether
to better mitigate the collective harm of it. We can check each
others biases.

Brett Paatsch