Return to Website

dr. robert forum

Welcome to dr. robert forum.

This Forum community is growing fast. Tell your friends.


Visit "ask dr. robert" to read replies to the latest questions.

Thanks to the help of a very kind Cajun amigo, the Dr. Robert Forum is back, better than ever, at:

I look forward to seeing you all there.

Be well,

robert's Forum
This Forum is Locked
View Entire Thread
Re: Moral Camouflage or Moral Monkeys?

I am always puzzled by people who believe they are more intelligent than the rest of us, but in fact have no insight, and no understanding of anyone else either. Do you think this is a common feature of psychopathy?

I don't know. I have read in several places that psychopaths are not supposed to have any kind of insight. I find that a somewhat dubious proposition though. I think what they really mean is that psychopaths don't agree with society at large about moral reasoning, which is not the same thing as being entirely without insight.

Do you really mean that he won't get that at all?

No, I mean that he doesn't care. I am going to be generous and assume he can grok it. He just doesn't care to say that he does since that is not his agenda.

Then again you could be right about that inability to comprehend idea. Some of the comments I have read seem to indicate a lack of ability to see connections between even ideas. Sometimes it is just a language barrier. Other times though, I think it's more. Interesting...

As for your suggestion that guilt might be helpful to someone realizing their errors in reasoning, I think intellectual honesty is more efficacious. At least, it has been for me. Then again, I don't do the guilt thing so I'm not the best one to ask.

I followed the long dialog you had with the doc, and loved it. You say you lack emotional connection, yet you seemed to be able to modify your views in response to the doc, just as he listened and responded to you & It seems central to the entire question of morality.

Really? You see it as central? Hmm. I do not see the connection between intellectual honesty, comprehension ability and morality. Explain what you mean please.

As for my response to the good doctor in that particular conversation, when I comment as Daniel Birdick I make it a point to try to have decent online conversations. A decent conversation means, to me anyway, exchanging views clearly, without needless rancor or childishly disrespecting the other person. Of course, you will find examples on other forums ( where I am rude and caustic. No one is perfect. Still on average, I keep it clean. Intellectual honesty "compels" me to shift a belief if reason and evidence indicate it. I do not need to have an emotional connection to have a decent conversation or to be intellectually honest with myself.

Re: Moral Camouflage or Moral Monkeys?

Thanks for posting that article, famfav5. I read the whole piece, and was struck by the support it contains for the thinking I developed independently some time ago and have been trying to explain to my critics in this thread. They seem to feel that my explanation was an effort somehow to justify myself, but that was not my intention at all, nor is it the point. The point of my posts here was to explore the well-springs of morality with the intelligent readers here. I am saddened that some people here would rather snipe disrespectfully than to converse seriously and with good intentions. I see that as the sign of a small mind, regardless of psychological tendencies.

To quote further from the article:

"(1) You do what you do — in the circumstances in which you find yourself—because of the way you then are.

(2) So if you’re going to be ultimately responsible for what you do, you’re going to have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are — at least in certain mental respects.

(3) But you can’t be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.

(4) So you can’t be ultimately responsible for what you do.

The key move is (3). Why can’t you be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all? In answer, consider an expanded version of the argument.

(a) It’s undeniable that the way you are initially is a result of your genetic inheritance and early experience.

(b) It’s undeniable that these are things for which you can’t be held to be in any way responsible (morally or otherwise).

(c) But you can’t at any later stage of life hope to acquire true or ultimate moral responsibility for the way you are by trying to change the way you already are as a result of genetic inheritance and previous experience.

(d) Why not? Because both the particular ways in which you try to change yourself, and the amount of success you have when trying to change yourself, will be determined by how you already are as a result of your genetic inheritance and previous experience.

(e) And any further changes that you may become able to bring about after you have brought about certain initial changes will in turn be determined, via the initial changes, by your genetic inheritance and previous experience."

That pretty much covers it, I think, and if Zay or Zenemy don't want to see it, that unthinking resistance says a lot I think.

I reply to your question about narcissism and psychopathy: As I wrote in another thread, there is a current theory that psychopathy is a particularly strong form of narcissism. I doubt this. My idea, as you know, is that what we call "psychopathy" really isn't a "pathy" at all, but a normal human personality variant. Narcissism, on the other hand, I do consider pathology, although in contemporary Western culture it is beginning to seem almost normal since so many suffer from it--and make the rest of us to suffer them.

I do like your idea, however, that a psychopath, since he cannot be moved emotionally and seems not to require much connection to others, might be more easily lost in narcissism, and have no road back from it, than a so-called "normal." That may be. Recent posts in this thread seem to back up your idea.

Daniel, I am sorry that the original idea of the thread seems to have been lost. As Hexi said, it was just getting good (although I don't think he meant it in the way that I do). Perhaps you would like to start a new one on morality in one form or another.

Be well.

Re: Moral Camouflage or Moral Monkeys?

Philosophy.. it is where psychology was risen from and you can see the influence. Just as philosophy rambles on and on about how the world is flat oh but then round and then there are witches but then there are none.

Philosophy.. the story of mankind but rest assured.. in the world of science.. we do not blindly go into the night. We do not trust some Catholic wise man to tell us how the mysteries of the world work..

because we have no faith...

We are scientists.. we are the logical minds of the world... we seek TRUE wisdom. Because we have seen where the darkness of unenlightened thinking has taken societies and we do not want to join them in oblivion.

All nations rise and fall. Only through science can we really know why.. why the world is the way it is. It was science that told us the Earth isn't flat, witches aren't real, and the color of a persons skin does not define them as an individual.

Science brings light to the darkness. I have offered you all wisdom and in it's light you all screamed and cried but you all did nothing. ou all said nothing. You whine that I do not examine your points of view yet you seek me to look for your information. No, if you have an arguement you will display it to me. You will not ask me to go look it up. As I do not ask you to look it up. i bring the facts to you.

Which is where we stand. I have brought the facts to you. What have you brought me in turn?


Words.. just like the Bible had words. You know why you only bring words and minor demeaning statements? Your egos are damaged... threatened by an undeniable truth. I have shaken the very foundation from which you stand because while Dr Robert will stimulate your egos.. I will not.

And my actions are only an amplification of the feelings Hexi has, We know you have nothing but words. As scientists I laugh at you. Look at your lack of knowledge towards the psychopath.

Their opinions of the psychopath are constantly evolving ideas and no more. In scientific terms.. there is no disorder in the mind of a psychopath. There is no dysfunction. A lose of consciousness is not considered a mental illness but is rather considered to be a mental deficiency of emotion.

All these psychopaths that psychology studies.. are in ******* PRISONS!!! I don't know about any of you but doesn't it seem rather odd that we have no other psychopaths to study? Better yet. why aren't you all asking these questions? Where are all these psychopaths that aren't being detected?! Maybe they are living more functional lives.. maybe they are more intelligent than prison idiots.

In scientific terms.. the test are all biased. The problem is.. psychologists cannot naturally locate psychopaths unless they are caught.

Anytime I can lie to your face and you have no way in your field of proving I'm a liar... you have no real science and I will not measure you to be anything more than you are until you validate reason for change.. but you can't and we both know that because any arguement you make that comes in conflict of neuroscience is not true.

You are a person of changing faith. I am a person of logic. I don't take comfort in feelings. I take comfort in knowledge. So when I see everyones egos scream and whine under the crushing power that is my reality... I am validated.

Further you really can't continue this.. joke. You forget that it is not me you are arguing against.. it's Harvard and the entire medical field. Fools.. you have not challenged anything more than the very cream of societies crop.

So.. that doctor that saved your family members life.. he practices my science. That preacher/philosopher/psychologist who makes you spiritually feel better but doesn't explain why your son is dying of aids.. he's not a real scientist. He just wants your ego to find him appealing so you will listen to his ideas that are unsupported.

This is all nothing more than a scientific experiment to me. Take a bunch of brainwashed egos and expose them to reality. Do they maintain brainwashing as designed upon their egos or do they reconsider?


They maintain brainwashing. While at the same time.. the psychopath remains vigilantly aware and does not fall into the manipulative traps that egos would submit to naturally.

It's always funnier to do psychological tricks to people who study psychology. It just shows you how inferior the ego really is. how quickly it is deceieved and fooled into submission.

Look at all of you sad little egos. All of you upset by my words.. no doubt many of you coming back time and again to see what has happened next.. what has been going on. I assume that though.. i assume it because egos crave conflict. People who wouldn't normal say anything.. will rise and say much when threatened but not when introduced to positive stimuli.

You all supported neuroscience through your actions.. do you get it now... oysters. I can explain to you why... actually I already have. It's a function of your autonomic nervous system.. which is often refereed to here as your subconscious or unconscious but really it does.. a lot more.

I'm not a psychopath you ignorant fool. I am a normal person who suffered brain trauma. Which means that while I do have a conscious.. my emotions are short lived, unlike a psychopath that has no feelings at all. however, outwardly appearing.. you might think i was a psychopath. Fortunately, THE MEDICAL FIELD OF SCIENCE has proven otherwise.

You can actually live with a depleted sense of consciousness. You don't become a mindless drone with no feelings either. But consider this...

Imagine you didn't know that. Imagine science never proved it. That would mean that if a person suffered coma and then came out and you didn't understand what was going on.. you would think they have become a cold blooded psychopath.

If you were religious you might think they were possessed by a demon and all the time you think this of that person.. they feel it when you say it. but they don't feel it very long. Nevertheless.. it hurts.. So maybe they start becoming like a psychopath.. maybe they start losing their connection.

But do you know why? Cause other people rejected them for being different. All the time.. this person has feelings just like everyone else but without science.. you wouldn't know that.

**** on what you think you know. **** on your deception. **** on your dark ways of thinking. I find comfort in science.. it does not guess but rather knows what is going on and if science does not know.. they tell you they don't know. They tell you they have theories but.. they don't know for a fact BECAUSE.. unlike Fox News, Preachers, philosophy, Psychology ect ect.. Science does not leave anything to question. Science is a collection of facts and as more facts are added.. more knowledge is obtained and the more we know about hw the brain works.. the more we can enlighten the world from darkness that is ignorant thinking.

Re: Moral Camouflage or Moral Monkeys?


Dr. Robert was right about at least one thing. You are intellectually quite dishonest which is the sign of a second rate mind at best. After asking him to offer some scientific evidence for his idea and then implying that he had none and was just making stuff up, you completely ignored the evidence he did offer you. Never commented on it, never even acknowledged it. I took a look at it, and it does seem to support his idea, and these were neurological experiments with MRI's of brains and all that.

I know your game, I have played your game, I see your game, and it's a loser called I'm Always Right. No wonder the doc cut you off. You deserved it.

Re: Moral Camouflage or Moral Monkeys?

I agree ROR and it's even worse that that because all of the guy's words adds up to nothing. Not that the experiments might not have been interesting but the idea that physical impairment of the brain can cause changes in consciousness is obvious and proves little which has not been known for decades or even centuries. Yes I guess that zeroing in on the actual cells responsibile is interesting in its way, but has nothing to do with what the Doc or James were talking about. Zenemy is one of those guys whose estimation of his own intellect is way out of line with what he really comes up with and he is blind to it because he is all ego and nothing else. I watched some of the truly bright people on this forum like Daniel debate things with the Doctor and those were good discussions because there was respect and listening on both sides and the Doctor is super bright and well informed and doesn't mind sharing ideas. This guy Zemeny doesn't know what he is talking about and is afraid to face up to being in a group of people like James and the Doctor who do know a thing or two. So he just ignores what they say and goes on raving.

Re: Moral Camouflage or Moral Monkeys?

Riddle me this, smart people. What does all of the preceeding discussing mean for morality's ontological status, in your opinion?

Re: Moral Camouflage or Moral Monkeys?


Morality ultimately resides in the ideas and behaviour of humans (assume that there are no smart, ethical aliens for the moment).

Thus, if there were no humans, morality wouldn't be.

However, we seem to have developed it for beneficial evolutionary reasons. I'd wager that for any animal broadly similar to us, something like morality and group dynamics would develop.

Of course, one can't know this, there's loads of good sci-fi built on this not being the case, but in the same way the complex eye replicates itself again and again in nature, in multifacetedd ways, in drastically different creatures. Consider how different an insect, octopod and mammalian eye are. But having an eye confers such an advantage on a planet such as this, so these diverse animals all have them.

So it's as if we can say, that for a certain type of animal, in X, Y and Z conditions, its a FACT that an eye is advantages.

It's an odd thing, a fact like this. What's its ontological status? It is supervenient on more fundamental rules of nature. If there were no planets in the universe, as there weren't in it's early history, then in a sense there was no geography. Yet as soon as planet begin to form, they do so in certain consistent and rationally comprehendible ways, and we have geography, with geographical facts. Geography exists, factually, but only when there are bodies to which it applies

In the same way, morality exists, when there are moral agents (not that I believe they have agency). Language exists only when there are those that can speak it, yet linguistics can be considered a science, with its own OBJECTIVE facts (basics structures of all human grammar and so on).

So is morality objective, actually existing? Yes, but supervening on other natural facts, and laws.

As to what the natural law, physics, reality that these things are derived from really are, ontologically speaking... It's late, I just finished a shift and that's a long pitch. My monism is getting the best of me.

What I've written is very skatty, but hopefully I gave some sort of idea. I'll update when I can if it interests you. And I need to read that article. and pick up on some of FamFive's points.