[extropy-chat] Formulating a bet

[Brett Paatsch]

Damien wrote:

> At 02:21 PM 3/27/2005 +1000, Brett wrote:
> 
>>I am surprised that that is how it seems to you Damien.
> 
> And that's why it'd be pointless trying to have jurors adjudicate the 
> question (assuming that question is not "might a vitrified/frozen dead
> body be warmed up, healed and awoken?", to which the answer of
> course is "quite possibly", but "do I care especially whether a
> discontinuous copy of me is constructed in the future after I'm dead?").

> Since you remain surprised by my answer after I've explained my 
> reasoning, why should you accept the opinion of jurors if I sway them?

I'm confused now because I have in mind two 'answers' that are yours,
to two separate questions/issues and I'm not sure to which you refer.

That you'd answer (as I think you clearly and unambiguous do in The
Spike), no, to the question "can cryonics work (for you)?" doesn't
surprise me. I found your argument there quite compelling. Indeed I
don't think I disagreed with any part of it. 

What "surprised" me was that you said in this thread in relation to my
looking to formulate a bet on 'can cryonics works?' and including the
issue of identity within the ambit of judgement that that "seems equivalent
to" (quoting you) asking Muslims and non-Muslims, lunatics and non 
lunatics together to judge.

It was you seeing *those* things as equivalent that surprised me. 

--

The question Hal had offered as a first pass, might well have been
reformulated into the one you put above, I'm not averse to exploring
that sort of alternate wording especially should that be of interest to
Hal or Robin (or yourself, if you are interested, I just thought that you
were not interested). 

I do have a strong *preference* for keeping the "identity" aspect
coupled with the other aspects because I think that together they
make a more interesting (to a wider public as well as to me) bet. 

You ask "Since you remain surprised by my answer after I've
explained my reasoning, why should you accept the opinion of 
jurors if I sway them?"

I'd accept that the judges (that I had a hand in selecting, along
with others using our best endeavors) had judged. And that
whilst I might still not agree with the judges I had entered into
a contract with you and Hal or Robin etc to accept their 
judgement and to pay off on the bet. As I would expect them
to accept the judgement if it went the other way.  Also, the fact
of the judges judgement would be significant to me as evidence
to weight into my personal worldview even if I didn't agree with
it. 

This common understanding that the judges judgement was
going to result in money changing hands even if your, or my
or Hals, or Robins personal opinions ultimately were not 
changed, should I think create and incentive to make sure
that the judging process is well formed to be fair to all sides.

The existence of a real market would convey consensus
price information to others who might not want to bet but
may still be interested in what the consensus was on the
question "can cryonics work?"

I hope I answered your question.

Brett  Paatsch