cacian
11-14-2012, 05:18 AM
Do humans need a science to tell how to communicate with a person with a brain damage?
Things happen for a reason. A brain damaged human although tragic is an opportunity for humans, grander then science, to show we can reinvent new ways of communicating with each other. Just because language isn't does not mean feelings aren't.
This brings emotional intelligence into question:
Do we have any?
I feel however that science is better up its game and instead of exploiting the human brain it needs to show that it can tell a human how to avoid a brain damage at the first place.
Science at the expense of human detriment is not intelligent science.
Science is intelligent when it produces facts and datas that read how someone could be in danger and thus prevent them from hurting themselves.
Science could be seen as art and not a manipulator.
Things happen for a reason. A brain damaged human although tragic is an opportunity for humans, grander then science, to show we can reinvent new ways of communicating with each other. Just because language isn't does not mean feelings aren't.
This brings emotional intelligence into question:
Do we have any?
I feel however that science is better up its game and instead of exploiting the human brain it needs to show that it can tell a human how to avoid a brain damage at the first place.
Science at the expense of human detriment is not intelligent science.
Science is intelligent when it produces facts and datas that read how someone could be in danger and thus prevent them from hurting themselves.
Science could be seen as art and not a manipulator.