[Fis] Chuan's reply4 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan

[赵川]

Dear Prof.Zhong, Joseph, Krassimir , Jerry, Steven, Pedro and All, 
	Thanks Prof. Zhong for you voice and thesis! 
	Dear Joseph I am moved with the phrase in the mail you reply Krassimir: “co-exist with 'ours'”. And feel it is really Hopi Native Americans is wonderful and worthy. The “co-exist” let me think of one of my surprise as an English learner: con-science means conscience. It becomes a humane word! We even can make a riddle: “science + … + science = ？”  perhaps you speak English should laugh at me, that is fun, but in fact as a student I remembered this word just by this way.  Yes, and multi-disciplinary, interdisciplinary. A serious question is: why we can do interdisciplinary thing? Why it is possible? How does it runs? I thought it and try give an answer- as Prof. Zhong say, a view to this – I try put out an “equal seriousness Principle”, it is in the new book the same. What are the same? what are compared? What are measured? While we transfer, we interdisciplinary? I feel it is “seriousness”. Go on ask: what is “seriousness”? then we arrive the factor of human itself. Then we arrive intelligence science. For example why we can say “Vincent van Gogh as a painter is same great as Beethoven as a musician”? For they arrive same serious with their own fields. 
	I have so many replies with these mails. Thanks! More soon. 
Best regard,
Chuan
March 7, 2015