Previous Next

Ray Kurzweil

An interview with director Barry Ptolemy on his intimate portrait of futurist Ray Kurzweil and the coming Singularity.

IN THE FUTURE, humans will live forever. This is the promise of the coming Singularity, as predicted by futurist Ray Kurzweil. The charismatic and prolific inventor has dedicated his life to accelerating intelligence. Called “the rightful heir to Thomas Edison,” he is also:

the principal developer of the first CCD flatbed scanner, the first omni-font optical character recognition, the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind, the first text-to-speech synthesizer, the first music synthesizer capable of recreating the grand piano and other orchestral instruments, and the first commercially marketed large-vocabulary speech recognition.

After reading his most recent book, “The Singularity is Near,” filmmaker Barry Ptolemy approached Ray to shoot a documentary on his life and the future of humanity. The result: Transcendent Man, a film spanning 2 years and five countries.

I caught up with the director/producer for his thoughts on Ray’s personal life, the difference between intelligence and wisdom, and the fusion of human and machines.

BNT: First off, what is the singularity? 

BARRY: The Singularity is a point in time in the near future when technology will be accelerating so fast that we’ll have to merge with it in order to keep up.

What drew you to make a film about Ray Kurzweil? 

There is no one else like Ray in all of human history. He came around at the right time with the right skills to reveal the destiny of our human machine civilization. He is the first person in history to do that. In my mind this makes him one of the most fascinating people in the world.

What struck you as most profound about the Ray you gradually uncovered, as opposed to Ray the public figure? 

He’s known publically as being this super genius, but you can’t see how deep that well of intelligence runs until you spend a lot of time with him. He’s also a very compassionate and loving person with a great deal of wisdom. It’s profound to spend time with him on an ongoing basis.

Director/Producer Barry Ptolemy

Ray says “the most important phenomena in the universe is intelligence.”  How do you define intelligence and how is that different than wisdom?

It would appear that intelligence resides within patterns of information. A pattern of information could be a hydrogen atom, a redwood tree or a Shakespearean poem. We happen to live in a universe that wants to evolve these patterns of information in an iterative process, moving always towards more complexity and more order. This has been happening since the big bang.

Recently, in the last few hundred thousand years, the level of complexity and order has become so great that the universe produced its greatest invention — the human brain. The human brain is the most cutting edge form of intelligence in the universe that we know of, but it is now on the cusp of creating a new higher form of intelligence. This has been called Artificial Intelligence, but both Ray and I agree that there is nothing artificial about it. It will simply become a more complex and ordered form of intelligence.

Wisdom, on the other hand, is an application of intelligence that utilizes our memories and experiences for better quality of life – to make better choices. So in this way you could call wisdom a branch on the tree of universal intelligence.

Ray refutes the idea that “the purpose of life is to accept death,” and sees death as a profound tragedy. Yet in his own life, attempting to overcome death appears to have driven all of his passion into technology.  In a future without death, what would fuel our passions? Where would we derive meaning? 

I think Ray is driven by the uniquely human quest to transcend our limitations. He sees death as one of those limitations. Blindness is another. Gravity another. Etc. There are an infinite number of limitations that we face and there will always be new challenges for us to overcome. I think we will always be passionate about breaking through barriers and transcending limitations. This is why I called my film Transcendent Man.

Ray says we have skyrocketing rates of obesity because of a limitation of our DNA (how we process food). He believes the solution is to engineer new pills that allow our habits to continue, without having the adverse effect on our bodies.  Yet this “adverse effects” often serve as barometers on how to live our lives – is there a danger to looking to change our “bodies” as opposed to say, the system that serves us unhealthy food? 

The system we live in is still designed around a biological body that evolved millions of years ago when we walked around in a world of extreme scarcity. Having Big Macs that serve us 1000 calories per sitting would have seemed ideal to our ancestors, but we have too much of a good thing today and don’t realize it.

I enjoy eating. I am programmed to enjoy it. But I would prefer to enjoy a meal and for it not to have any deleterious side effects on my body. Since there can still be unhealthy consequences to eating even a healthy meal I think we need to reprogram our biology away from these consequences. Eventually as we transcend our biology we will overcome our need for consuming calories and take energy in a more direct way, like from the sun.

Ray sees his father’s death as a profound tragedy, that he was never able to express his musical gift – therefore the “point” of his life was never fulfilled. But what if the point of his life wasn’t to fulfill that role, but many other roles instead?  Could his “role” have been to push Ray to be the person he became? 

Assigning meaning to the life of someone who has passed has been the human justification for death for thousands of years. We had no choice but to accept death and find ways to rationalize it. I don’t believe Ray is implying that his father’s life had no meaning because he wasn’t able to fulfill his musical potential. But, rather, there is no benefit in losing the memories, experiences, relationships and beauty of a human life.

So while his father had a meaningful and worthwhile life and everyone who ever knew him may have had a meaningful experience with him, it is a profound tragedy that that intelligence and creative life force had to die.

One scary scenario saw the future as a battle between those who preach AI (Artificial Intelligence) as God, and those that feel the risk is too great.  What is the wisdom in setting ourselves up for this war? Is it inevitable?

There are a couple of things to understand before jumping to the conclusion that AI’s will ever be in a position to conquer humans. The first point is that as computers become more powerful they are conversely becoming smaller at a rate of 100X volume per decade. So as these computers start to become aware they will also be a part of us, literally. They’ll go in our brains starting in the next 25 years by the billions and interface with every inter-neural connection. So there will be no “us” and “them.” We will be one human-machine civilization.

The second point is that we enter our society when we are born and must come to terms with the rules and laws that came before us. The same will be true of the millions (and then billions) of emerging AI’s. They will have to live by the laws and rules of our civilization. They will have many human qualities (since we reverse engineered our own brains to create them) like ambition, creativity, love, etc. And to be able to get things done in this human-machine civilization they will learn that they need to cooperate with each other and with other humans. And we will want to get things done.

I don’t anticipate any war-like scenario after the birth of AI. I think we’ll enter into a world of much greater harmony since we’ll all be communicating with one another more than at any other time in our history and also because our interests will be more aligned with each other than at any other time. I actually believe our future AI’s will love us more than we love each other today.

Happiness, as my studies and practices of Eastern philosophy have led me to believe, is not dependent on external conditions.  It lies in our own interconnectedness with the universe, and the ability to tune into the timeless moment. Yet Ray, and other futurists, appear obsessed with manipulating external conditions. Do you believe we can ever achieve this happiness? 

It is true that happiness is a relative condition, but I don’t think one could achieve it without one’s biological needs taken care of. Like Maslov’s Heirachy of Needs the more we move up the pyramaid the more we can create our own self-actualization. I think creativity is where our happiness comes from and I think Ray is describing how we can get all 7 billion of our inhabitants able to participate in that self-actualization.

In regard to the environmental crises, Ray adheres to the belief that “technology will save us.”  The great irony is that we are becoming aware just how much the application and development of technology has destroyed our planet. Charles Eisenstein, author of The Ascent of Humanity, sees this worship of technology as the ongoing and misguided attempt to separate ourselves from nature.  What are your thoughts on this dichotomy between nature and technology? 

I don’t think Ray suggests that technology will save us but rather we can use technology to overcome the greatest challenges we face today. Ray is supremely aware that technology is a double edged sword and always has been, however history has revealed that we used fire primarily to heat our homes and cook our food and not to burn down the next village.

People say the world is going to hell in a hand basket, but that is not at all what we are seeing. All the important indicators, like money spent on education, longevity, infant mortality, eradication of disease, poverty are all going in the right direction. Even violent crimes in the U.S. are at 60 year lows. We have a front row seat with 24/7 cable news networks as to all the bad things happening in the world, but this is a good thing because when we see something bad happen, like the Gulf oil spill, or a group of miners stuck in a Chilean mine we immediately use technology to solve that problem.

You don’t have to go back very far in our own history to see how hopeless life was without technology. It was short, disease filled and disaster prone. Ask someone who has a loved one on their death bed and who has the choice between using technology to save that person or to relinquish what we know and allow a loved one to perish. Only technology has the scale to address the challenges our world faces today. We will very quickly do away with dirty 19th century technologies and see our world become as pristine as the day we walked off the African plains. 

What were your own beliefs about technology going into the film, and how, if at all, did they change afterward? 

I’m more hopeful today then ever before. Despite all of our shortcomings, I believe we are going in the right direction. I have faith in this universe we inhabit. It’s been evolving in order and complexity for a long, long time and I believe our generation will see that order and complexity used for the ultimate step in our human evolution.

Visit Transcendent Man to learn more and watch the film.

What do you think about Ray Kurzweil’s ideas? Share your thoughts in the comments!



About The Author

Ian MacKenzie

Ian MacKenzie is the founder and former editor of Brave New Traveler. He is Head of Video at Matador Network. Ian is also an independent filmmaker, with his first feature (One Week Job) released in 2010. His more recent projects include Sacred Economics and Occupy Love.

  • Alex

    I for one welcome our machine overlords :)

  • Jason Wire

    This is a fantastic interview, especially so because it doesn’t ask the same questions we’ve all heard answered before. What becomes our driving purpose when death is no more? Excellent question.

    Of course, there are so many more. I tend to agree with a lot of Kurzweil’s predictions, but it’s difficult, especially now, to feel that an increased dependency upon technology isn’t going to further polarize human civilization. If we can’t afford to feed the world, it’s unlikely we’ll be able to give everyone brain-computers. 

    I think the best thing about all of this discussion, though, is that it not only looks to what the future will bring us–but often turns the lens inward to confront what we’re doing in the present to enable a better one down the road.

  • Christine Garvin

    I’ll go ahead and say these ideas reek of uber-patriarchal undertones of conquer and destroy. Even the idea that death – or blindness, or gravity, or eating healthy food – are limitations is based in a masculine notion that the “human brain is the most cutting edge form of intelligence in the universe that we know of” (let me just throw in the feminine notion that nature, in fact, is the most intelligent form that we know of, one we will never, EVER be able to fully understand), and that these realities must be destroyed for our survival/fruition. But if you look at the intelligence of Earth, she (it, whathaveyou) does not need us to survive – in fact, the end of human death – or any other kind – would mean the complete and total destruction of the Earth (and that’s just not gonna happen).

    Beyond these notions being patriarchal in nature, even worse they are Western, white man/women (I include women here as many subscribe to these ideas) notions that basically eliminate the belief systems of more than half the world. Most Eastern religions do not see death as a limitation, rather a necessary part of the ebb and flow of life – without death, no life follows. Besides that, if we all lived forever, then those who believe in more than one life would be screwed out of the evolution of their soul, which is the larger point of manifesting into physical form. I personally want my soul to continue on, not be stuck forever more in the trappings of this lifetime. Lessons learned – next, please.

    I have to disagree with the “everything is getting better” idea, also. At least in America, we are seeing the first generation that is actually doing WORSE than their parents for the first time in at least 150 years. The rates of cancer, diabetes, and ailments stemming as side effects from our fantastic pharmaceutical industry (and fake food) are hitting 25 year-olds, when only 15 years ago that was unheard of. Countries in Africa are experiencing a lack of food and other basic needs more than ever before. I could go on. Just because the rich are getting richer does not mean things are getting better for most people. And when it comes to technology, most people I talk to feel completely drained and disconnected because of it, and feel each and every day they are less able to keep up.

    And that’s where I might agree with some of what Kurzweil has to say – I do see AI taking over. It already has. But I don’t think for a minute that doesn’t, or won’t, negatively impact human beings or create more love.

    • whatareyouserious

      what in the world does any of this have to do with “masculine” or “feminine”?
      or anything to do with creating love and peace for that matter, look at numbers and say something intelligent, because last time I checked “because I feel it’s that way” was kind of a stupid way to come to conclusions like this.You’re opinions are incredibly unenlightened and stupid, nothing you said could even be considered intelligent. We are all stupider for having read it, I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

      • Jason Smolk

        I am stunned by the intense reactions that people have posted in response to this. Is a reluctance to immediately accept and adopt new forms of social and technological development really that evil or inscrutable? Christine is sharing a personal belief, (one that I partially disagree with) and the first responses call her “stupid”, “old”, “blind”, and “small, angry, and limited”. Is this really how conversations go amongst the technologically enlightened? If that’s how the singularitarians and transcendants act, maybe Kurzweil’s rosy future isn’t as wonderful as many believe.

    • Lenovo Green

      Wow, what a profoundly irrational response… You’re actually bringing up income rates in the US to refute an argument centering on the premise that the universe trends towards sophistication? You’re bringing the disparity in wealth between the classes as proof against profound progress?

      Then you went on to bring up examples of your own interactions with technology to ‘disprove’ that we are growing closer to it?

      Really really silly response, Christine. Almost good enough to be a satire. You walked away with zero understanding of the topic, wrote a disjointed, angry response based on your current emotional state, and figured you made a point.

      Ray’s theories are certainly not patriarchal… The reasoning you laid out here, however, exemplifies stereotypical PMS-centric logic.

  • Carlo Alcos

    That’s a pretty big disservice and pointless reply to Christine’s well thought-out response to this. How about explaining what you mean?

    • Derrick Leifemgowl

      Actually, it was quite a succinct response… A response that does perfect justice to the parent post. Christine’s response reflects zero thought at all, just a long-winded knee jerk response characteristic of a small, angry, limited mind.

      • Jared Krauss

         I disagree.  It was succinct to the point of being irrelevant and crude.

        Yours at least showed some level of intellect, what with good grammar and more words with real meaning.

        “I feel” is the perfect way to respond to an article such as this.  How is she going to refute the entire article, movie, book, whatever in a comment, she can’t.  A comment is not the place for that.  A comment is a place to comment, and what do you do when you comment on something? you talk about what you feel, e.g., what you think.

        Do not dismiss another opinion solely because it does not line up with what your idea of a comment should be.

        That said, I largely agree with Christine.  However, I also see the possibilities in Transcendent Man and what Ptolemy and Ray have to say.

        One thing, however, I feel they are forgetting is the blowback, social undercurrents, resistance to this.  What I mean is, we still have people that dress up like knights and queens and kings, we still have people that grow their own vegetables, live in the jungles and mountains on their own, away from the world, people who do not own phones (like me), who do not have computers, or even go on the internet, some because they do not have access and others because they make a conscious decision to abstain.

        Christine, if you don’t mind, I’d like to add that this frame of thinking (Ray’s) is, in my opinion, correlative to capitalism, expansion, imperialism, conquest and the resources we have on Earth are finite.  The time when our brains and AI are intertwined will also be the time when we start looking to the stars (ahem, Kepler 22b) for more resources, terraforming will become a big industry in the next hundred years or so as we look to Mars and begin to expand our space capabilities, VASIMIR rockets have the capability to send payloads in orbit around Earth to Mars and maybe? (can’t quite remember off the top of my head) back in something like 30 days.

        my 2 cents, cue crude dismissive comments now

  • Carlo Alcos

    I sincerely hope he’s wrong in the timing of all this. I’d like to be dead before all this goes down. Death is part of the cycle of life. Have we not learned enough already? Our attitude of conquering nature (death/gravity as limitations) is already endangering our civilization and will lead to its downfall.

    That said, I would like to see the film, so I’ll reserve further judgement til then…

    • Ian MacKenzie

      Regardless of philosophical differences, it’s definitely worth watching. Barry created a fairly balanced portrait of Ray and his ideas.

  • Dave

    this reminds of every mad scientist villian Ive ever seen in movies.

    plot: mad scientist fears death, wants to live forever, creates technology and tests it out on himself.. however side effects include extreme agression, insanity, and green goblin-like powers.

    maybe he has a messiah complex. who knows.. he does have a strange look in his face

  • petergkinnon

    While Kurtsveil’s observations regarding the exponential development of technology are clearly valid, he, in common with other transhumanists, consistently misses the direction which the wider body of evidence suggests future events will take.
    By stepping outside our usual anthropocentric mindsets and considering the broader evolutionary picture we detect not a “singularity” but rather a phase transition in a process for which our species becomes redundant. 
    This is the model presented in “The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?” (free download in e-book formats from the “Unusual Perspectives” website)

  • daniel

    New technology has frightened human beings from antiquity to the present day, and will likely continue to do so.  The more it is used, the more it spreads out among the population, the more familiar it becomes, so the more the anxiety will decrease.

    It is not for nothing that when engineers constructed a machine (I believe it was animal powered) for digging trenches in the Hellenistic period, it was decided to let it fall into disuse.

    But few people today would hold that machines are intrinsically evil. 

    The fault lies not in the nanobots, Horatio, but in ourselves.

  • CDRshepard


  • Rami En Ligne

    Je suis entièrement d’accord avec vous.

  • B Hache

    im reading ascent of humanity right now so its weird that i happened onto this. the feeling i keep getting when i think about the “inevitable” singularity is that i think i’d rather starve to death meditating in a beautiful place than put a chip in my head and live forever. 

    thats just a feeling. it sounds like a utopia that would degenerate into hell. reminds me of the stories of tribulation after the rapture in the bible. thats my crazy christian father talking haha. 

    trust me id rather spend an eternity in orgasmic ecstasy if there wasn’t hell to pay.

    • Ian MacKenzie

      That’s interesting, as I interviewed Charles Eisenstein last year about that book

      While I appreciate the perspective of thinkers like Kurzweil, I feel techno-optimism can be just as ungrounded as new-agey spirituality. They both believe in a transcendent future rather than moving fully into the materiality of the world right now. 

    • eYeDEF

      Just wait until you try putting the chip in your head and you’ll see the light much sooner than attempting to reach nirvana through meditation. If you insist on denying yourself a vastly improved life because of an irrational fear of goblins and prefer to be left behind to embrace a neo-luddite existence that’s your prerogative. 

      • Beezobob

        If it’s his prerogative, why are you giving him so much crap about it?

  • Bedros Makram Bedros

    I like

  • Kso Null
The way you travel today will not be the way you travel tomorrow.
The Maya said we're due for a shake-up soon. Turns out, they were right.
A reflection on a generation and a rally cry for our future.
It's been 60 years since '1984' was published. Was Orwell's view of the future dead-on?
How many beans equal the average amount of time someone travels for pleasure?
Where are the hover cars? Turner Wright laments the lack of transportation technology...
Ever get the feeling that something isn't quite right with the world? Author and...
It's a scary proposition when even the experts think there is nothing we can do to save...
How many people stop themselves from heading out into "unknown" lands for fear of real or...
Jane Nemis put herself through school working in a burn unit. Here she recalls a vivid...