Jules Dassin is dead?!

[SirNewt]

How did Match Cut miss this? Maybe, I just wasn't around this day?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7323746.stm

[origami_mustache]

It was mentioned in the film discussion thread, but I suppose it does warrant it's own thread.

[Qrazy]

What's with all these film directors living so god damn long? Most of them were pushing towards the triple digits... Antonioni... Bergman...

Also since when is Never on Sunday his most famous film?

[Kurosawa Fan]

TCM is playing a couple of his films on April 20th. I'll be watching The Naked City.

[DavidSeven]

He directed the greatest pure heist film I've ever seen.

[origami_mustache]

I didn't like Never On Sunday much, but I guess it is notable because it stars Melina Mercouri and earned him a best director nomination?

[SirNewt]

What's with all these film directors living so god damn long? Most of them were pushing towards the triple digits... Antonioni... Bergman...

Also since when is Never on Sunday his most famous film?

yeah. . . I'm not sure what's up with that. . .

:crazy:

[Qrazy]

yeah. . . I'm not sure what's up with that. . .

:crazy:

That's pretty old dude.

[SirNewt]

That's pretty old dude.

huh

[Qrazy]

huh

They all lived a pretty long time. I wonder what the life expectancy of the average cinema master is... did they all sign pacts with the devil? I'm not saying it's definitely the case, but I'm also not saying it's not, not definitely the case.

[SirNewt]

They all lived a pretty long time. I wonder what the life expectancy of the average cinema master is... did they all sign pacts with the devil? I'm not saying it's definitely the case, but I'm also not saying it's not, not definitely the case.


Woops, talk about communication breakdown. I was agreeing with you that the assertion that 'Never on Sunday' being his most famous film was suspect.

But actually you're first point might have some merit. Don't forget this guy.

http://www.filmreference.com/images/sjff_02_img0728.jpg

dead at 88, not crazy old but above the average for sure

[Yxklyx]

What's with all these film directors living so god damn long? Most of them were pushing towards the triple digits... Antonioni... Bergman...

Some directors will probably live a few hundred years.

[SirNewt]

Some directors will probably live a few hundred years.

Metaphorically?

"And everywhere that Roman power has sway,
in all domains the Latins gain, my lines
will be on peoples lips; and through all time--
if poets' prophecies are ever right--
my name and fame are sure: I shall have life."

because,

E. O. Wilson spoke at my school last year and he seems to actually believe immortality is possible within our generation. I know he's old and a little bit crazy but I really wanted to believe him.

[MadMan]

TCM is playing a couple of his films on April 20th. I'll be watching The Naked City.Damn I'll be working that day. I'll have to check the TCM schedule.

[D_Davis]

Some directors will probably live a few hundred years.

Could be.

Once we reach the technological singularity, we could all be "immortal."

We've got 3 bridges to cross.

They predict that within the next 50 years, we should be able to increase human lifespan to about 125 years.

At the end of this bridge, we should be able to increase this to 250 years.

At the end of this bridge we should be at the technological singularity after which we will be able to download our consciouses into a computer and live forever.

[SirNewt]

Could be.

Once we reach the technological singularity, we could all be "immortal."

We've got 3 bridges to cross.

They predict that within the next 50 years, we should be able to increase human lifespan to about 125 years.

At the end of this bridge, we should be able to increase this to 250 years.

At the end of this bridge we should be at the technological singularity after which we will be able to download our consciouses into a computer and live forever.

I'm totally having myself frozen.

[Qrazy]

They predict that within the next 50 years, we should be able to increase human lifespan to about 125 years.

---

At the end of this bridge, we should be able to increase this to 250 years.


That seems like somewhat of a leap kind of predicated on... nothing.

Plus with technology, use of chemicals, etc going the way it is there's plenty of reason to believe that disease will keep up with if not outstrip our potential to understand and diffuse it (cancers are springing up all over the place). Plus humanity is actually quite overdue for it's next large plague. Still despite all that I agree with you that we'll be pushing 125 within the next century, if nothing drastic goes wrong.

But as far as I can tell based on the majority of literature immortality is supposed to be fairly awful.

[Qrazy]

I'm totally having myself frozen.

Yeah... it worked for Disney... wait...

[Spinal]

This falls under the category of People I Had Already Assumed Were Dead Anyway.

[D_Davis]

I'm totally having myself frozen.

Just follow Ray Kurzweil's life style, diet, and vitamin intake!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil

He takes like 200 supplements and drinks some untold gallons of fresh green tea a day. He also visits some crazy doctor that costs $6000 a visit once a month.

He is trying to prolong his life long enough until we reach the first bridge.

Here is a fantastic article on the whole process:

http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/16-04/ff_kurzweil


His book, The Age of Spiritual Machines is amazing.



The technological singularity is actually predicted on quite a bit of sound science and futurism. It's more than just a pie in the sky dream of some science fiction authors, although like many future ideas worth shooting for it has popularized by the SF crowd, especially Rudy Rucker.

Of course it's not a definite thing, but then again, what is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

Once this point is reached, the jump to conscious immortality could be short and totally plausible.

Very exciting!

[MadMan]

Honestly I don't want to live past 85. Preferably 75 actually. I'm going to take this moment to post one of the funniest movie monlogues on aging:


Mitch Robbins: Value this time in your life kids, because this is the time in your life when you still have your choices, and it goes by so quickly. When you're a teenager you think you can do anything, and you do. Your twenties are a blur. Your thirties, you raise your family, you make a little money and you think to yourself, "What happened to my twenties?" Your forties, you grow a little pot belly you grow another chin. The music starts to get too loud and one of your old girlfriends from high school becomes a grandmother. Your fifties you have a minor surgery. You'll call it a procedure, but it's a surgery. Your sixties you have a major surgery, the music is still loud but it doesn't matter because you can't hear it anyway. Seventies, you and the wife retire to Fort Lauderdale, you start eating dinner at two, lunch around ten, breakfast the night before. And you spend most of your time wandering around malls looking for the ultimate in soft yogurt and muttering "how come the kids don't call?" By your eighties, you've had a major stroke, and you end up babbling to some Jamaican nurse who your wife can't stand but who you call mama. Any questions?

Its from City Slickers if anyone is wondering. Its utterly hilarious.

[DrewG]

Ironic: I was reading Ebert's The Great Movies analysis of Rififi and it said that Dassin was still alive and I thought, "holy crap, he must be old as shit."

Rest in peace sir.

[origami_mustache]

I want to die before I'm 30.

[D_Davis]

I want to die before I'm 30.

Why?

[MadMan]

Why?Live fast, die young, leave a good looking corpse I suppose. *Shrug*

[SirNewt]

Just follow Ray Kurzweil's life style, diet, and vitamin intake!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil

He takes like 200 supplements and drinks some untold gallons of fresh green tea a day. He also visits some crazy doctor that costs $6000 a visit once a month.

He is trying to prolong his life long enough until we reach the first bridge.

Here is a fantastic article on the whole process:

http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/16-04/ff_kurzweil


His book, The Age of Spiritual Machines is amazing.



The technological singularity is actually predicted on quite a bit of sound science and futurism. It's more than just a pie in the sky dream of some science fiction authors, although like many future ideas worth shooting for it has popularized by the SF crowd, especially Rudy Rucker.

Of course it's not a definite thing, but then again, what is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

Once this point is reached, the jump to conscious immortality could be short and totally plausible.

Very exciting!

Thanks for all the links, really interesting stuff. What are the biggest criticisms of the singularity? Has anyone built a stronger case against it other than the idea that technological growth might not continue to be exponential?

[D_Davis]

Thanks for all the links, really interesting stuff. What are the biggest criticisms of the singularity? Has anyone built a stronger case against it other than the idea that technological growth might not continue to be exponential?

No problem.

I don't know much about the case against singularity. I must admit that I probably spend too much time listening to the proponents of the idea, and I also really, really want it to be true!

;)

I do need to read more about it.

This is the kind SF stuff I can really sink my teeth into.

[D_Davis]

Should probably start a new thread...but...

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html

Like Rudy Rucker, Vinge is a mathematician and SF author



The Coming Technological Singularity:
How to Survive in the Post-Human Era

Vernor Vinge
Department of Mathematical Sciences
San Diego State University

This article was for the VISION-21 Symposium
sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center
and the Ohio Aerospace Institute, March 30-31, 1993.
It is also retrievable from the NASA technical reports
server as part of NASA CP-10129.
A slightly changed version appeared in the
Winter 1993 issue of _Whole Earth Review_.

Abstract

Within thirty years, we will have the technological
means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after,
the human era will be ended.

Is such progress avoidable? If not to be avoided, can
events be guided so that we may survive? These questions
are investigated. Some possible answers (and some further
dangers) are presented.

_What is The Singularity?_

The acceleration of technological progress has been the central
feature of this century. I argue in this paper that we are on the edge
of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth. The precise
cause of this change is the imminent creation by technology of
entities with greater than human intelligence. There are several means
by which science may achieve this breakthrough (and this is another
reason for having confidence that the event will occur):

o The development of computers that are "awake" and
superhumanly intelligent. (To date, most controversy in the
area of AI relates to whether we can create human equivalence
in a machine. But if the answer is "yes, we can", then there
is little doubt that beings more intelligent can be constructed
shortly thereafter.

o Large computer networks (and their associated users) may "wake
up" as a superhumanly intelligent entity.

o Computer/human interfaces may become so intimate that users
may reasonably be considered superhumanly intelligent.

o Biological science may find ways to improve upon the natural
human intellect.Lot's of good references at the end of the paper as well.

Tons of more reading here as well:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1


UBIK here we come!

Salvation in a can!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/af/Ubik%281stEd%29.jpg/200px-Ubik%281stEd%29.jpg

[Qrazy]

Thanks for all the links, really interesting stuff. What are the biggest criticisms of the singularity? Has anyone built a stronger case against it other than the idea that technological growth might not continue to be exponential?

Frankly it all sounds like so much bullshit to me. I don't see any actual support for the notion aside from an iffy historical analysis of paradigm shifts. Maybe we'll get there in a few hundred years, that's assuming it's even possible.

There has not even been a computer model that has passed the Turing Test yet. The human brain is still being studied and mapped and psychology is at the foremost stages of examining the range and effects of parallel processing networks. We still have a very long way to go in understanding mentalese or consciousness.

It may well prove to be the case that inorganic lifeforms, or at least the robotic/computer technology we're working with so far, are incapable of consciousness. 'Intelligence' only means so much without intentionality.

A more realistic goal for the near future is more advanced space travel. About twenty years ago it was hypothesized that in fifty years we'd be colonizing the moon, Mars, etc. We still have a long way to go there as well, but that's much more do-able at this point than excellent AI, and frankly much more worth our time in my opinion.

And all of this is assuming we don't hit some theoretical asymptope in the not too distant future that makes us realize how difficult both of these ventures actually are.

[Qrazy]

"o Computer/human interfaces may become so intimate that users
may reasonably be considered superhumanly intelligent.

o Biological science may find ways to improve upon the natural
human intellect."

These are the only two that even seem remotely plausible to me at this juncture and really it's all moot to me because based on the majority of what I've read and experienced our limitations right now are not so much biological as they are social/educational. We need a major revamping of our education system particularly in the early years, and that should show some drastic advances in intelligence. The education systems both at home and in schools are severely limiting the potential of our youth.

[D_Davis]

And all of this is assuming we don't hit some theoretical asymptope in the not too distant future that makes us realize how difficult both of these ventures actually are.

Or the CERN Hadron Collider might wipe us out in the near future by creating tiny blackholes that don't go away as promised, thus sucking the energy out of space.

But if this happens, it will all be over so quickly that we won't even know what hit us.

[D_Davis]

Frankly it all sounds like so much bullshit to me.

I'm sure someone said the same thing about the Earth being round and humans going to the moon.

And even if it is, it is still incredibly interesting, and it is refreshing to know that some of the brightest minds around are dreaming about something great again.

[Sven]

A very strange thread indeed. Rififi rocks.

[SirNewt]

Frankly it all sounds like so much bullshit to me. I don't see any actual support for the notion aside from an iffy historical analysis of paradigm shifts. Maybe we'll get there in a few hundred years, that's assuming it's even possible.

There has not even been a computer model that has passed the Turing Test yet. The human brain is still being studied and mapped and psychology is at the foremost stages of examining the range and effects of parallel processing networks. We still have a very long way to go in understanding mentalese or consciousness.

You don't have to tell me this. As far as mental illness goes we are practically helpless right now.

It may well prove to be the case that inorganic lifeforms, or at least the robotic/computer technology we're working with so far, are incapable of consciousness. 'Intelligence' only means so much without intentionality.

True, the idea that A.I. could equal human thought is based on the idea that human consciousness is built up thought processes. If conciousness is somehow more than just layers of thought it might be impossible to recreate our minds.

A more realistic goal for the near future is more advanced space travel. About twenty years ago it was hypothesized that in fifty years we'd be colonizing the moon, Mars, etc. We still have a long way to go there as well, but that's much more do-able at this point than excellent AI, and frankly much more worth our time in my opinion.

We could be on the moon or even Mars by now easily but there is little motivation to do so. Why spend the money to send men where for far less machines can go. Granted, I'd place space travel at the pinnacle of our efforts as reaching the stars will be the most realistic spiritual journey we can take, (polishes Carl Sagan Merit Badge).

And all of this is assuming we don't hit some theoretical asymptope in the not too distant future that makes us realize how difficult both of these ventures actually are.

Stupid computer, message is to short my ass.

/luddite disgruntlement

[Qrazy]

"We could be on the moon or even Mars by now easily but there is little motivation to do so. Why spend the money to send men where for far less machines can go. Granted, I'd place space travel at the pinnacle of our efforts as reaching the stars will be the most realistic spiritual journey we can take, (polishes Carl Sagan Merit Badge)."

Because environmentally our world is going to shit and we should try all we can to fix the problem, but we should also have a Plan B. Forget the spiritual journey, I'm talking about survival.

[SirNewt]

"We could be on the moon or even Mars by now easily but there is little motivation to do so. Why spend the money to send men where for far less machines can go. Granted, I'd place space travel at the pinnacle of our efforts as reaching the stars will be the most realistic spiritual journey we can take, (polishes Carl Sagan Merit Badge)."

Because environmentally our world is going to shit and we should try all we can to fix the problem, but we should also have a Plan B. Forget the spiritual journey, I'm talking about survival.

From what I've read, the prevailing theory is that the worlds population will peak at 10 bil and follow along a bell curve. Supposedly the Earth can handle this. There are theories that the environmental damage we cause will follow a similar curve. We will incur permanent damage but there is a possibility we will have a sustainable planetary enviroment 80 years from now.

[Qrazy]

I'm sure someone said the same thing about the Earth being round and humans going to the moon.


That's nice, doesn't really offer anything in the way of proof or even likelihood in the way that Pythagoras, Aristotle, et al. did and therefore isn't an especially apt comparison by any stretch. But if you want to embrace this theory on faith, be my guest. Personally if we're going to throw the dice forward for the next 50 years, statistically I'd rather put my money on nuclear holocaust than on singularity or black hole destruction. The singularity is still science-fiction. A better comparison would be string theory which is still very much up in the air, but is beginning to show mathematical progress.

For every 'out there theory' (for their time) which was borne out over the course of the centuries, I could cite you a thousand more which fell flat on their face and turned out to be absolute fluff.

The theory is interesting, but there's really not that much support for it, particularly in the chronology it's proponents seem to be espousing. I'm wary because to me it seems like the old human race tooting it's own horn as we so often do, claiming levels of approaching brilliance that we are still so very far from reaching. Yes humanity has great potential, but aside from cocky self-assurance, there's little reason to believe we're going to realize it so amazingly, so quickly.

Anyway as I said, our untapped potential lies largely in education reform above and beyond biological manipulation or comp/human fusion.

[Qrazy]

From what I've read, the prevailing theory is that the worlds population will peak at 10 bil and follow along a bell curve. Supposedly the Earth can handle this. There are theories that the environmental damage we cause will follow a similar curve. We will incur permanent damage but there is a possibility we will have a sustainable planetary enviroment 80 years from now.

That all sounds to me like very best case scenario.

[D_Davis]

The singularity is still science-fiction.

So was space flight until we did it.

[SirNewt]

For every 'out there theory' (for their time) which was borne out over the course of the centuries, I could cite you a thousand more which fell flat on their face and turned out to be absolute fluff.


Shut up! Achilles cannot overtake the Tortoise! Never! Never!

EDIT: actually that's a pretty sound paradox. . .

In the end I must agree with you. Even though I'd love to believe in the singularity it really seems like on future in many. Kind of like, my Utopian happy bunny tree tree land, that is tomorrow. Not that I think it's irrelevant or bunk just because it sounds unreal but because so many things have to come perfectly together for it to work.

[Qrazy]

So was space flight until we did it.

Yeah, but that involves physical mobility, something humanity has a long history of being good at advancing. We have very little knowledge of consciousness or skill at manipulating it. Psychology is a very young science. Like I said, it is an interesting theory but I just don't think we should get as excited about it as some of those guys are getting. I find it very unlikely it's something we will see develop particularly far in our lifetime.

[D_Davis]

I don't know if I actually "believe" in the singularity, but I do think it is one of the most fascinating theories out there right now, and I love everything surrounding it. It has injected some new life into the realms of speculative fiction.

I think the economic singularity is much more plausible - what happens when stuff becomes to easy and cheap to produce that it no longer has any value?

Doctorow is a big proponent for this.


This has been an epic thread jack, by the way.

Good job!

[SirNewt]

Yeah, but that involves physical mobility, something humanity has a long history of being good at advancing. We have very little knowledge of consciousness or skill at manipulating it. Psychology is a very young science. Like I said, it is an interesting theory but I just don't think we should get as excited about it as some of those guys are getting. I find it very unlikely it's something we will see develop particularly far in our lifetime.

As I said, I want to believe it will happen and I truly see it as a possibility but in the meantime my vitamin intake is going nowhere.

[Qrazy]

As I said, I want to believe it will happen and I truly see it as a possibility but in the meantime my vitamin intake is going nowhere.

Yeah but is immortality really a good thing (picture of dorian gray, etc)?

[SirNewt]

Yeah but is immortality really a good thing (picture of dorian gray, etc)?

True, I'd like to believe that living eyond my normal lifespan would content me. I like to think I could live for 500 years and then decide I had seen enough and let myself die. After living so long, however, it would become easy to rationalize continuing my life merely because I can choose to die anytime and once I am dead I can no longer choose to live. Being immortal would almost be irrelevant if life homogenizes the way Kurzweil believes it will. Far more interesting to me would be to live 1000 different lives. Perhaps not retaining all knowledge of the past and all awareness of the future but with vague memories, shadows and dreams, would be best.

It seems to me, as humans, the bad we do pushes us down more than the good we do lifts us up. Perhaps, Wilde was right and the desire to be immortal itself stems from an inner developing inhumanity in the first place.