| |
|
The emotion universe
Why have we made limited progress in AI? Because we haven't developed sophisticated models of thinking, we need better programming languages and architectures, and we haven't focused on common sense problems that every normal child can solve.
Originally published on Edge,
Nov. 7, 2002. Published on KurzweilAI.net Nov. 22, 2002.
On July 21, 2002, Edge
brought together leading thinkers to speak about their "universe."
Other participants:
The
Computational Universe by Seth Lloyd
The
Intelligent Universe by Ray Kurzweil
The
Inflationary Universe by Alan Harvey Guth
The
Cyclic Universe by Paul Steinhardt
I was listening to this group talking about universes, and it seems
to me there's one possibility that's so simple that people don't
discuss it. Certainly a question that occurs in all religions is,
"Who created the universe, and why? And what's it for?"
But something is wrong with such questions because they make extra
hypotheses that don't make sense. When you say that X exists, you're
saying that X is in the Universe. It's all right to say, "this
glass of water exists" because that's the same as "This
glass is in the Universe." But to say that the universe exists
is silly, because it says that the universe is one of the things
in the universe. So there's something wrong with questions like,
"What caused the Universe to exist?"
The only way I can see to make sense of this is to adopt the famous
"many worlds theory" which says that there are many "possible
universes" and that there is nothing distinguished or unique
about the one that we are in—except that it is the one we are
in. In other words, there's no need to think that our world "exists";
instead, think of it as like a computer game, and consider the following
sequence of "Theories of It":
(1) Imagine that somewhere there is a computer that simulates a
certain World, in which some simulated people evolve. Eventually,
when these become smart, one of those persons asks the others, "What
caused this particular World to exist, and why are we in it?"
But of course that World doesn't "really exist" because
it is only a simulation.
(2) Then it might occur to one of those people that, perhaps, they
are part of a simulation. Then that person might go on to ask, "Who
wrote the Program that simulates us, and who made the Computer that
runs that Program?"
(3) But then someone else could argue that, "Perhaps there
is no Computer at all. Only the Program needs to exist—because
once that Program is written, then this will determine everything
that will happen in that simulation. After all, once the computer
and program have been described (along with some set of initial
conditions), this will explain the entire World, including all its
inhabitants, and everything that will happen to them. So the only
real question is, what is that program and who wrote it, and why?"
(4) Finally another one of those "people" observes, "No
one needs to write it at all! It is just one of 'all possible computations!'
No one has to write it down. No one even has to think of it! So
long as it is 'possible in principle,' then people in that Universe
will think and believe that they exist!"
So we have to conclude that it doesn't make sense to ask about
why this world exists. However, there still remain other good questions
to ask, about how this particular Universe works. For example, we
know a lot about ourselves—in particular, about how we evolved—and
we can see that, for this to occur, the "program" that
produced us must have certain kinds of properties. For example,
there cannot be structures that evolve (that is, in the Darwinian
way) unless there can be some structures that can make mutated copies
of themselves; this means that some things must be stable enough
to have some persistent properties. Something like molecules that
last long enough, etc.
So this, in turn, tells us something about Physics: a universe
that has people like us must obey some conservation-like laws; otherwise
nothing would last long enough to support a process of evolution.
We couldn't "exist" in a universe in which things are
too frequently vanishing, blowing up, or being created in too many
places. In other words, we couldn't exist in a universe that has
the wrong kinds of laws. (To be sure, this leaves some disturbing
questions about worlds that have no laws at all. This is related
to what is sometimes called the Anthropic Principle." That's
the idea that the only worlds in which physicists can ask about
what created the universe are the worlds that can support such physicists.)
The Certainty Principle
In older times, when physicists tried to explain Quantum Theory,
to the public, what they call the uncertainty principle, they'd
say that the world isn't the way Newton described it; instead they
emphasized "uncertainty"—that everything is probabilistic
and indeterminate. However, they rarely mentioned the fact that
it's really just the opposite: it is only because of quantization
that we can depend on anything!
For example, in classical Newtonian physics, complex systems can't
be stable for long. Jerry Sussman and John Wisdom once simulated
our Solar System, and showed that the large outer planets would
be stable for billions of years. But they did not simulate the inner
planets—so we have no assurance that our planet is stable.
It might be that enough of the energy of the big planets might be
transferred to throw our Earth out into space. (They did show that
the orbit of Pluto must be chaotic.)
Yes, quantum theory shows that things are uncertain: if you have
a DNA molecule there's a possibility that one of its carbon atoms
will suddenly tunnel out and appear in Arcturus. However, at room
temperature a molecule of DNA is almost certain to stay in its place
for billions of years—because of quantum mechanics—and
that is one of the reasons that evolution is possible! For quantum
mechanics is the reason why most things don't usually jump around!
So this suggests that we should take the anthropic principle seriously,
by asking. "Which possible universes could have things that
are stable enough to support our kind of evolution?"
Apparently, the first cells appeared quickly after the earth got
cool enough; I've heard estimate that this took less than a hundred
million years. But then it took another three billion years to get
to the kinds of cells that could evolve into animals and plants.
This could only happen in possible worlds whose laws support stability.
It could not happen in a Newtonian Universe. So this is why the
world that we're in needs something like quantum mechanics—to
keep things in place! (I discussed this "Certainty Principle"
in my chapter in the book Feynman and Computation, A.J.G.
Hey, editor, Perseus Books, 1999.)
Why don't we yet have good theories about what our minds are and
how they work? In my view this is because we're only now beginning
to have the concepts that we'll need for this. The brain is a very
complex machine, far more advanced that today's computers, yet it
was not until the 1950s that we began to acquire such simple ideas
about (for example) memory—such as the concepts of data structures,
cache memories, priority interrupt systems, and such representations
of knowledge as "semantic networks." Computer science
now has many hundreds of such concepts that were simply not available
before the 1960s.
Psychology itself did not much develop before the twentieth century.
A few thinkers like Aristotle had good ideas about psychology, but
progress thereafter was slow; it seems to me that Aristotle's suggestions
in the Rhetoric were about as good as those of other thinkers until
around 1870. Then came the era of Galton, Wundt, William James and
Freud—and we saw the first steps toward ideas about how minds
work. But still, in my view, there was little more progress until
the Cybernetics of the '40s, the Artificial Intelligence of the
'50s and '60s, and the Cognitive Psychology that started to grow
in the '70s and 80s.
Why did psychology lag so far behind so many other sciences? In
the late 1930s a botanist named Jean Piaget in Switzerland started
to observe the behavior of his children. In the next ten years of
watching these kids grow up, he wrote down hundreds of little theories
about the processes going on in their brains, and wrote about 20
books, all based on observing three children carefully. Although
some researchers still nitpick about his conclusions, the general
structure seems to have held up, and many of the developments he
described seem to happen at about the same rate and the same ages
in all the cultures that have been studied. The question isn't,
"Was Piaget right or wrong?" but "Why wasn't there
someone like Piaget 2000 years ago?" What was it about all
previous cultures that no one thought to observe children and try
to figure out how they worked? It certainly was not from lack of
technology: Piaget didn't need cyclotrons, but only glasses of water
and pieces of candy.
Perhaps psychology lagged behind because it tried to imitate the
more successful sciences. For example, in the early 20th century,
there were many attempts to make mathematical theories about psychological
subjects—notably learning and pattern recognition. But there's
a problem with mathematics. It works well for Physics, I think because
fundamental physics has very few laws, and the kinds of mathematics
that developed in the years before computers were good at describing
systems based on just a few—say, 4, 5, or 6 laws—but doesn't
work well for <a href="javascript:loadBrain('System')" onMouseOver="playBrain('System')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">system</a>s based on the <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Order')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Order')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">order</a> of a dozen laws.</p>
<p>[Continued on <a href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/minsky02/minsky02_p4.html" target="_blank">Edge.org</a>.]</p>
<p><i><a href="javascript:loadBrain('Copyright')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Copyright')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">Copyright</a> © 2002 by Edge Foundation, Inc. Published on
KurzweilAI.net with permission.</i></p>
</td><td> </td><td valign="top" class="sidebar"><a href="#discussion">Join the discussion about this article on Mind·X!</a><p>{Sidebar}</p></td><td> </td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="6"><img src="/blank.gif" height="35" width="35" alt="" border="0"></td></tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td colspan=4>
<a name="discussion"></a><p><span class="mindxheader"> [<a href="/mindx/frame.html?main=post.php?reply%3D11806" target="_top">Post New Comment</a>]<br> </span>Mind·X Discussion About This Article:</p><a name="id13716"></a>
<table border="0" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="0" height="1"></td>
<td colspan="4"><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="679" height="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" bgcolor="#CCCCCC" valign="top"><img src="/mindx/images/round-left.gif"></td>
<td bgcolor=#CCCCCC><p>Re: The emotion universe<br><span class="mindxheader"><i>posted on 01/21/2003 10:19 AM by tharsaile</i></span></td>
<td bgcolor=#CCCCCC align="right" valign="top"><span class="mindxheader">[<a href="#discussion">Top</a>]<br>[<a href="/mindx/frame.html?main=show_thread.php?rootID%3D11806%23id13716" target="_top">Mind·X</a>]<br>[<a href="/mindx/frame.html?main=post.php?reply%3D13716" target="_top">Reply to this post</a>]</span></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" bgcolor="#CCCCCC" valign="top" align="right"><img src="/mindx/images/round-right.gif"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td bgcolor=#DDDDDD colspan="4"><p>That was a fascinating article! Isn't anyone else going to comment on it? (In this universe, I mean)
<br>
<br>
FROM THE ARTICLE:>Imagine that somewhere there is a computer that simulates a certain World, in which some simulated people evolve. Eventually, when these become smart, one of those persons asks the others, "What caused this particular World to exist, and why are we in it?" But of course that World doesn't "really exist" because it is only a simulation.<
<br>
<br>
In his famous G.E.D., Douglas Hofstadter spoke about the possibility of a world created in, say, a fictional story, *existing* somewhere. Well, not existing, but having characters that discuss their existence. Any comments?</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="1" height="1"></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" valign="bottom" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/mindx/images/round-bottom-left.gif"></td>
<td colspan="2" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="1" height="1"></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" valign="bottom" align="right" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/mindx/images/round-bottom-right.gif"></td>
</tr>
</table>
<a name="id11807"></a>
<table border="0" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="0" height="1"></td>
<td colspan="4"><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="679" height="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" bgcolor="#CCCCCC" valign="top"><img src="/mindx/images/round-left.gif"></td>
<td bgcolor=#CCCCCC><p>Good work on Intelligence<br><span class="mindxheader"><i>posted on 11/24/2002 2:29 AM by Hemal Bhatt</i></span></td>
<td bgcolor=#CCCCCC align="right" valign="top"><span class="mindxheader">[<a href="#discussion">Top</a>]<br>[<a href="/mindx/frame.html?main=show_thread.php?rootID%3D11806%23id11807" target="_top">Mind·X</a>]<br>[<a href="/mindx/frame.html?main=post.php?reply%3D11807" target="_top">Reply to this post</a>]</span></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" bgcolor="#CCCCCC" valign="top" align="right"><img src="/mindx/images/round-right.gif"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td bgcolor=#DDDDDD colspan="4"><p>Respected Sir,
<br>
as per your query on intelligence,I guess if you are aware of Project Renaissance's work.
<br>
The information is infinitely more than an excellence.
<br>
visit http://www.winwenger.com
<br>
-Hemal.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="1" height="1"></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" valign="bottom" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/mindx/images/round-bottom-left.gif"></td>
<td colspan="2" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="1" height="1"></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" valign="bottom" align="right" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/mindx/images/round-bottom-right.gif"></td>
</tr>
</table>
<a name="id13597"></a>
<table border="0" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="0" height="1"></td>
<td colspan="4"><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="679" height="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" bgcolor="#CCCCCC" valign="top"><img src="/mindx/images/round-left.gif"></td>
<td bgcolor=#CCCCCC><p>Re: The emotion universe<br><span class="mindxheader"><i>posted on 01/18/2003 5:55 AM by rschatz</i></span></td>
<td bgcolor=#CCCCCC align="right" valign="top"><span class="mindxheader">[<a href="#discussion">Top</a>]<br>[<a href="/mindx/frame.html?main=show_thread.php?rootID%3D11806%23id13597" target="_top">Mind·X</a>]<br>[<a href="/mindx/frame.html?main=post.php?reply%3D13597" target="_top">Reply to this post</a>]</span></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" bgcolor="#CCCCCC" valign="top" align="right"><img src="/mindx/images/round-right.gif"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td bgcolor=#DDDDDD colspan="4"><p>>So we have to conclude that it doesn't make sense to ask about why this world exists.<
<br>
<br>
It seems that we are at about the 2 year old stage of human evolution. Two year olds ask why about everything, even when it doesn't make sense. For example:
<br>
(mother) "Do you want milk or juice"?
<br>
(child) "Why"?
<br>
(mother's thoughts) "?? Why what??"</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="1" height="1"></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" valign="bottom" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/mindx/images/round-bottom-left.gif"></td>
<td colspan="2" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="1" height="1"></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" valign="bottom" align="right" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/mindx/images/round-bottom-right.gif"></td>
</tr>
</table>
<a name="id49872"></a>
<table border="0" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="0" height="1"></td>
<td colspan="4"><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="679" height="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" bgcolor="#CCCCCC" valign="top"><img src="/mindx/images/round-left.gif"></td>
<td bgcolor=#CCCCCC><p>Re: The emotion universe<br><span class="mindxheader"><i>posted on 10/15/2005 2:20 AM by <a href="/mindx/profile.php?id=471">eldras</a></i></span></td>
<td bgcolor=#CCCCCC align="right" valign="top"><span class="mindxheader">[<a href="#discussion">Top</a>]<br>[<a href="/mindx/frame.html?main=show_thread.php?rootID%3D11806%23id49872" target="_top">Mind·X</a>]<br>[<a href="/mindx/frame.html?main=post.php?reply%3D49872" target="_top">Reply to this post</a>]</span></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" bgcolor="#CCCCCC" valign="top" align="right"><img src="/mindx/images/round-right.gif"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td bgcolor=#DDDDDD colspan="4"><p>Hilarious Marv,
<br>
<br>
but I dont think you will turn godists around before they wear you out!
<br>
<br>
<br>
Psychology IS as mathematical as physics, providing you allow it to modify it's laws like physics is allowed.
<br>
<br>
<br>
But the gamme is about cross-disciplines.
<br>
<br>
<br>
I ran a psychology lab for a while, and notocesd as astonishing thing.
<br>
<br>
The really great psycholgists generated different theories about how the mind was workiing ON A WEEKLY BASIS!.
<br>
<br>
<br>
You can argue of course that part of intelligence is being able to generate predictions and models.
<br>
<br>
The scientists then tests them.
<br>
<br>
Science is an external discipline based on empirical experimental work.
<br>
<br>
These people were getting cues that others couldn't who were using blueprint mnodels, and they hadn't got f-in models.those changed weekly.
<br>
<br>
What seemed to matter was contact and a real desire to help the client.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
But looking at the universe is a great way, and it sure fits all the requirements of a computing system, with a few unknowns like blackholes thrown in.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Many World Theory is an attractive theory, I've spent 15 years and it's illusive as hell to me.
<br>
<br>
One great difficulty is getting your head round the continum of self-consciousness ie I FEEL that i can now decide and coose which path I will follow, but MWT returns even quantum theory to the determined world.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="1" height="1"></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" valign="bottom" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/mindx/images/round-bottom-left.gif"></td>
<td colspan="2" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="1" height="1"></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" valign="bottom" align="right" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/mindx/images/round-bottom-right.gif"></td>
</tr>
</table>
<a name="id86219"></a>
<table border="0" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="0" height="1"></td>
<td colspan="4"><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="679" height="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" bgcolor="#CCCCCC" valign="top"><img src="/mindx/images/round-left.gif"></td>
<td bgcolor=#CCCCCC><p>Re: The emotion universe<br><span class="mindxheader"><i>posted on 09/16/2007 2:46 AM by <a href="/mindx/profile.php?id=4839">NotEqualwithGod</a></i></span></td>
<td bgcolor=#CCCCCC align="right" valign="top"><span class="mindxheader">[<a href="#discussion">Top</a>]<br>[<a href="/mindx/frame.html?main=show_thread.php?rootID%3D11806%23id86219" target="_top">Mind·X</a>]<br>[<a href="/mindx/frame.html?main=post.php?reply%3D86219" target="_top">Reply to this post</a>]</span></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" bgcolor="#CCCCCC" valign="top" align="right"><img src="/mindx/images/round-right.gif"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td bgcolor=#DDDDDD colspan="4"><p>The question about the universes existence is very rational.
<br>
<br>
Thinking about god(s) or thinking about what caused the universe is simply a question beyond human answering depending on you know and have access to and the length you exist, so what we do is we MAKE UP A PLACEHOLDER ANSWER, that has ELEMENTS of logic and elements of intuition but is a partial fabrication, it is a rough (course) idea or placeholder model until further data becomes available.
<br>
<br>
We do this in science if you look at history, many scientists because they did not have the tools speculated! This is what I call "arbitrary modelling"
<br>
<br>
I believe that ignorance and the reviled "magical thinking" is a necessary stage of intellectual development.
<br>
<br>
Our ability to arbitrarily model any data (imagine things that don't exist) is why we are such powerful survivors to begin with, people like to mock religion and god but the truth of the matter is, it represents a kind of trans-rationality, being able to step outside what is known (think about it in terms of set theory, being able to exist out side the set and sit on the fence).
<br>
<br>
You can see this in the Intelligent Design vs Natural evolution debate on the internet.
<br>
<br>
Any reasonably intelligent person who's ever seen a flagella can most certainly see that PALEY's hypothesis that life was precision machines was CORRECT and that darwins hypothesis was also CORRECT (descent with modification).
<br>
<br>
But the truth is we don't really grasp (and even understand) why we exist as conscious entities, our consciousness while dependent on a "reductionist" kind of scientific functionalism, also appears to have qualities of existing outside of functionality (i.e. a computer simply processing enormous amounts of data, suddenly forming an ego and then being able to direct and decide WHAT DATA to process next.
<br>
<br>
We have the ability to choose between one path or another or to focus our processing power towards an end like we were pushing buttons in the master control room of our minds.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="1" height="1"></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" valign="bottom" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/mindx/images/round-bottom-left.gif"></td>
<td colspan="2" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="1" height="1"></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" valign="bottom" align="right" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/mindx/images/round-bottom-right.gif"></td>
</tr>
</table>
<a name="id86248"></a>
<table border="0" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="20" height="1"></td>
<td colspan="4"><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="659" height="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" bgcolor="#CCCCCC" valign="top"><img src="/mindx/images/round-left.gif"></td>
<td bgcolor=#CCCCCC><p>Re: The emotion universe<br><span class="mindxheader"><i>posted on 09/16/2007 1:49 PM by <a href="/mindx/profile.php?id=2395">doojie</a></i></span></td>
<td bgcolor=#CCCCCC align="right" valign="top"><span class="mindxheader">[<a href="#discussion">Top</a>]<br>[<a href="/mindx/frame.html?main=show_thread.php?rootID%3D11806%23id86248" target="_top">Mind·X</a>]<br>[<a href="/mindx/frame.html?main=post.php?reply%3D86248" target="_top">Reply to this post</a>]</span></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" bgcolor="#CCCCCC" valign="top" align="right"><img src="/mindx/images/round-right.gif"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td bgcolor=#DDDDDD colspan="4"><p> I love reading Minsky's thoughts on this. Actually, it had occurred to me that we are undergoing the same process of evolution described by Piaget. I had a friend who studied Piaget several years ago, and he made me aware of this.
<br>
<br>
However, Minsky has proposed nothing that has not already been written biblically centuries ago. Asking who created the universe is a useless question. The problem is to keep human minds from creating universal models that expand and eliminate adaptive capacities.
<br>
<br>
From Genesis to Revelation, the main theme that escapes religion is that "knowledge of god" cannot be contained within human conceptions. If it were, then we could simply devise the rules that promise god-like behavior, which we have failed to do.
<br>
<br>
Even biblically we are repeatedly told that humans do not have the knopwledge of god or of a creator, yet we still assume that it can be demonstrated, and failing demonstration, we can assume that the knowledge of god can be contained within a cllective framework of rules that direct organizations.
<br>
<br>
If such knopwledge does not exist, then no amount of rules, laws, or size can produce an authentic understanding. Romans 8:7 sums it up.
<br>
<br>
But Minsky does attack the right issues. If such questions are futile, what do we ask?
<br>
<br>
We are limited to the universe itself, or to the probable universes that exist to produce such beings as ourselves.
<br>
<br>
But having such beings as ourselves means that there is no sense in searching for a universe in which "who created it" can be answered. Any such universe would supply answers to our own universe, making another universe unnecessary.
<br>
<br>
Minsky points out that trying to ask questions petrtaining to something outside our universe must be included within the universe. The very act of defining it will include it within the causal processes of this universe.
<br>
<br>
To me this implies that the search for a creator is futile even within a multiverse, which further suggests no reason to propose a multiverse theory in the first place, since each truth we discover of existence pertaining to any universe would also apply within this universe.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="1" height="1"></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" valign="bottom" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/mindx/images/round-bottom-left.gif"></td>
<td colspan="2" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="1" height="1"></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" valign="bottom" align="right" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/mindx/images/round-bottom-right.gif"></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p></p></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td></tr></table>
</body>
</html><script language="JavaScript">
window.onerror = error;
if (top == self ) {
restoreFrame();
}
if (!parent.document) {
restoreFrame();
}
function restoreFrame() {
top.location.replace('http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0532.html?');
}
function error(message,url,line) {
if (message.indexOf("Access is denied") != -1) {
restoreFrame();
return true;
}
else return false;
}
</script>
|
