Determinism vs Free Will

Author: Crocodile
Philosophy

Posts

Total: 161
Topic's author
#1
Crocodile
Crocodile's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 1,156
3
4
10
Crocodile's avatar
Crocodile
3
4
10
I'm a firm believer of free will. 

Determinism, as suggested by countless philosophers suggests that our minds are simply predictable, our behavior is literally determined from the start. But, who determines our behavior in the first place? Philosophers state that there's external and internal forces that we can't possibly interfere with. If we can not interfere with them, that means, to us, they do not exist. We have no way of proving if they do exist or do not. So, why pretend that they have power? Determinism is further contradicted by the legal and moral obligations of a human being. True, parents have control over children. But, do they really? A child has the free will to run away. 

Free will is literally mastered by happiness and true justification within a human mind. Once you've achieved a true moral compass, you're free from the philosopher's version of "determinism", and you do have free will. Evil ones are easier to predict that moral ones.
#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Crocodile
I believe in both (but ultimately this means I think free will is an illusion and that the illusion is 100% genuine and not 'fake' because reality itself is illusory). I can explain if you want.

In the most basic terms I think reality is simulated based on a random generator. In more complex terms, eventually a god-entity was randomly generated and hijacked the random generator, yet left some variables random still.
Topic's author
#3
Crocodile
Crocodile's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 1,156
3
4
10
Crocodile's avatar
Crocodile
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Free will is not compatible with determinism though. I believe determinism is an illusion and once freed of that illusion you can accomplish free will
#4
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Crocodile
Once you understand that determinism is at the core still random, you will understand more.

Free will happens but the freedom is not ours, it's the random generator of what is and isn't true at any given time at the core of reality.
#5
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Crocodile
A child has the free will to run away.
But do they really?
#6
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Crocodile
Evil ones are easier to predict than moral ones.
This is a lie. Both are difficult to predict at their height because the one who does most moral good is often extremely fast and strong and uses this to protect and help. The one who does most moral bad/evil is often extremely cunning and emotionally intelligent, having many layers of both strategic (long term) and tactical (spontaneous) advantages in any situation. While MLK Jr. and Gandhi types can do good, they still need frontliners risking themselves for their cause for anyone to listen and its those physical frontliners who actually are more predictable and good than their strategic leader, who is using them as shields no matter how you look at it. MLK Jr. needed Rosa Parks to sit on that bus and risk getting beaten up, spat on etc. While Malcolm X and such took it too far the other way, it's not simple to say that it was clear-cut 'talking and persuading is kinder' because without the frontliners who physically exposed and risked their own safety for the sake of fighting oppression, the silver-tongued speaker who freed the people would never have been listened to by the opposition, in the first place.

Good is extremely physical at its height, since smart people tend to calculate how to get things out of situations to benefit themselves. While a very kind therapist or 'team player' type can be good, they rarely end up doing as much good as the 'heroic warrior' type, in terms of actual output to stop evil and push forth benevolence.

Evil is very intuition-heavy and extremely creative at its height (think about Hitler, Genghis Khan and whoever you depict as extremely evil) the very thing that defines a truly evil and sinister being is that the fact you can't predict the lengths it will go to or how it will go about getting there make it so very dangerous and effective at spreading evil.
Topic's author
#7
Crocodile
Crocodile's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 1,156
3
4
10
Crocodile's avatar
Crocodile
3
4
10
But do they really?
Of course they do. Taking a literal point at life, you'll find determism is a illusion.
#8
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Crocodile
Evil ones are easier to predict that moral ones.
A dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're going to do something incredibly... stupid.
#9
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Crocodile
Determinism, as suggested by countless philosophers suggests that our minds are simply predictable, our behavior is literally determined from the start. But, who determines our behavior in the first place? Philosophers state that there's external and internal forces that we can't possibly interfere with. If we can not interfere with them, that means, to us, they do not exist. We have no way of proving if they do exist or do not. So, why pretend that they have power? Determinism is further contradicted by the legal and moral obligations of a human being. True, parents have control over children. But, do they really? A child has the free will to run away. 
Right off instead of actually providing an argument for why free will is the case you instead say why determinism is wrong. This would be okay if there were two options. If it wasn't clear on this thread there is a 3rd meme option so I find this to be poisoning the well before give an argument for your side. 

Another thing you do is very weirdly attach to an irrelevant point. Instead of actually providing what the external forces and internal forces are then explaining how they do not stop free will you instead decide to hone in on the part we are not able to interfere with it. I guess this is a sign of cherry picking but your point to this is well if we don't know it exist how do we know it does anything? Bearing in mind you miss out mentioning internal behavior and most importantly missing out what are these external and internal behavior's that we cannot interfere with so basically a bad cherry picking that doesn't even help your point.

Appeal to morality and appeal to legality. Do I need to say more? Your basically saying since we have morals we have free will but this is not explained in anyway and it isn't by definition so yeah.

Free will is literally mastered by happiness and true justification within a human mind. Once you've achieved a true moral compass, you're free from the philosopher's version of "determinism", and you do have free will. Evil ones are easier to predict that moral ones.
This is not an argument more of showing a positive to believing him. I guess this is a reverse poisoning the well where you positively attribute things to your point. 

From this his only arguments for free will were an appeal to morality and appeal to legality. The rest was cherry-picking and poisoning the well and reverse poisoning the well (totally not made up). 
#10
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,047
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Crocodile

..."Determinism, as suggested by countless philosophers suggests that our minds are simply predictable,...

In theory determinism is ultra-complexedly predictable and not as you have presented above and because what we believe { beliefs } are resultants of ultra-micro ---Gravity, if not also Dark Energy-- ergo and ultra complexedly high  set/number of lines of relationship, that no computer of any technology can ever accomplish, even if we could detect ultra-micro Gravity or Dark Energy.

There is only order, and the only disorder is that of mind being able to find the order, via limits of technology to not --not yet anyway--- quantize or quantify metaphysical-3 Gravity, metaphysical-4 Dark Energy and their lines-of-relationship to all other particles of Universe.

Knowing { resolve/quantification } that all { Universe/God } is orderly cause and effect determinism, does not change humans beliefs, morals etc.  What knowing the above does, is allow  quantification { resolvement, conclusion } that Ive come to these beliefs via a finite set of rational, logical common sense pathways-of-thought.

Which finite set of  pathways-of-thought, are in of themselves, cause and effect determinism.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/* *\/\/\/\/\/\/\ = bilateral conscious awareness is the fluctuation in the quantum sine-wave{s}. The monkey wrench in the sine-wave{s}. The seeming free will that seemingly  causes disorder to underlying, and only, orderly Universe.

Bilateral consciousness at best, can only have a cause and effect redirecting of the sine-waves angle and frequency i.e. bilateral consciousness is bound by the finite set of eternally existent ---ergo inviolate-- cosmic laws/principles.   All else is just a mind games of tangentally avoiding  these truths, to satisfy the metaphysical-1 ego * i * , to masturbate on false-hoods, decit and  lies.

I prefer masturbation of absolute and relative truths.








#11
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Crocodile
external and internal forces that we can't possibly interfere with.

These internal forces are the imagination (creativity), perception, emotions and the intellect (mind). And these are completely free and spontaneous, and far too dynamic to ever predetermine. They are in no way external to the will they are forever intertwined together actually so that everything you choose, think and do at any given moment is unique and fresh. Determinism is BS, predestination is BS and while there are some predetermined factors they are independent of our will. In other words we could actually exist within a predetermined environment with completely free will. And "free" is a bit of a misconception because everything we do has consequences because we exist under the laws of cause and effect so "our own" will is probably more accurately stated.
Once man was endowed with the creative imagination he became a co-creator of his own environment. The laws of cause and effect were then placed as a means to contain that endowment with a balance.
Now, if we're talking about God or a Creator it's the very same scenario. God's knowledge of what we "may" choose is not predestination. God is not a Puppet Master rather a good mind reader lol. Foreknowledge and predestination are not the same, one is insight and the other control. For example, you might get to know someone really well that you may even know what they might choose in any given situation but does that mean you predestined their choice? not at all, and actually they could have chose something entirely different. That's the dynamics and power of the imagination, perceptions, emotions and the mind....it's not controlled in any way. Having said that because of the weakness of those factors they can be manipulated by external factors. But to stay on point our own will is completely spontaneous and unplanned.

suggests that our minds are simply predictable, our behavior is literally determined from the start.

As I pointed out these two statements are not the same thing. The first has truth to it but the latter is untrue. Predictable and predetermined are entirely different concepts. I can predict an event external to my control because of say good insights or intuition but I can't predetermine an event external to my own control. I can predict you might do something but that never meant I made it or created it to happen. 
If we're talking about God again, the Creator creates a soul, covers that soul with a mind, emotional sheath, creative imagination ect ect and that soul is sent into the created worlds as a seed to become and choose whatever it wants in a dualistic environment. It becomes its own individual through the perceptions of its experiences due to its environment and circumstances. God never predetermined that souls choices or perceptions, they were freely gained through observation and experience alone. And because of the unique and maximal understanding/knowledge of God as an omnipresent Force God might know/guess what a soul will do in a situation but that is independent of what God wants or does. 



#12
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
All physiological actions are determined by the nature of their cause.

"Free will" really means freedom/spontaneity of thought and freedom to act upon such thoughts...I would argue  that thoughts are always responses to to a cause and that actions are responses to thoughts...Therefore the whole sequence of events from creation to death relies wholly upon varying levels of determinism.

And a god principle may be a part of the sequence... But not the ethereal Caucasian guy of the westernised Christian Bible.
#13
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
Libertarian free will is provably impossible whether determinism is true or false.

Compatabilist free will is true--but vacuously and trivially so--whether determinism is true or false.

Libertarian free will is the meaningful kind of free that most people want to believe in and do believe in ... but it's absurd.

Compatabilist free will is the meaningless kind of free will that everybody but a pure fatalist also believes in, in addition to the majority that believe in the more meaningful but absurd compatabilist kind, but it's completely useless (to everybody but an absolute fatalist which is almost nobody).

It could even be argued that compatabilism isn't even helpful to the fatalist. Because compatabilism merely labels actions as free actions and will as free will. Compatabilist free will is true by definition but only because it's labelled  even the non-free as free. It's a completely empty sense of freedom because it completely ignores the distinction between freedom's presence and freedom's absence. And I'm ignoring the standard constraint account because even pure fatalists recognize  that distinction they just wrongly don't see themselves as part of the causal chain. Nobody thinks that there isn't a difference between being coerced and not being coerced. The only interesting question is whether somebody can, ultimately, determine their own behavior and the answer to that really is no. 

#14
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Crocodile
Determinism, as suggested by countless philosophers suggests that our minds are simply predictable, our behavior is literally determined from the start.
Indeterminism would be a more accurate description.  There may be some fundamental "unpredictability" (randomness) injected into basic cause-and-effect.

The funny thing is, freewill actually demands cause-and-effect.  I did thus and therefore caused that.  This "decision making" would be impossible without cause-and-effect.

"Unpredictability" (randomness) is not compatible with freewill.  A random "choice" is not an act of will.  Any "good" "decision" must be context-sensitive (informed by history and non-random).  And any "decision" that is informed by history and appropriate to a specific situation cannot be "free" of "influence".

But, who determines our behavior in the first place?
We react to our environment based on our genetic instincts and physical capabilities.

Philosophers state that there's external and internal forces that we can't possibly interfere with.
Did you decide when and where you were born?  Did you choose your instincts and physical characteristics?

If we can not interfere with them, that means, to us, they do not exist.
Do you believe that your accident of birth and physical characteristics "do not exist"?

We have no way of proving if they do exist or do not. So, why pretend that they have power?
Do you believe all humans are born with an equal chance to be healthy, wealthy and wise?

Determinism is further contradicted by the legal and moral obligations of a human being.
That's true.  Many "legal" and "moral" concepts are incompatible with indeterminism.  But I'm sure that invalidates those particular "legal" and "moral" concepts themselves and does nothing to cast doubt on indeterminism itself.

True, parents have control over children. But, do they really? A child has the free will to run away. 
Have you ever tried to simply "run away"?  It's not as easy as it looks.

Free will is literally mastered by happiness and true justification within a human mind.
Please explain.

Once you've achieved a true moral compass, you're free from the philosopher's version of "determinism", and you do have free will.
I see, when you're a slave to "a true moral compass" then you're "free"?

Evil ones are easier to predict that moral ones.
Wouldn't you think that "the evil ones" lack of a "personal code" make them less predictable?

I mean, for example BATMAN won't kill, so, knowing that sort of limits their options, right?

Here's the problem.

There are only two possible options.

(EITHER)

(1) your thoughts (and actions) are contextual (caused by previous experiences, including your biology).

(OR)

(2) your thoughts (and actions) are random (uncaused by any previous experiences).

If you pick #1, then your thoughts (and actions) relate to your memory and the world around you (contextual). This means your thoughts (and actions) are potentially USEFUL TO YOU AND OR OTHERS.

If you pick #2, then your thoughts (and actions) don't necessarily relate to anything at all. And as a matter of fact, statistically, it would be extremely unlikely that any RANDOM thought or action would be even remotely or incidentally USEFUL TO YOU AND OR OTHERS.

Now you might try to mix the two options, some caused, some uncaused, and that's fine.

Your useful thoughts and actions MUST BE CAUSED.

YOur "free" thoughts and actions are TAUTOLOGICALLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE (99.999% of the time).


#15
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
Nobody thinks that there isn't a difference between being coerced and not being coerced. The only interesting question is whether somebody can, ultimately, determine their own behavior and the answer to that really is no. 
Well stated.
#16
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
And a god principle may be a part of the sequence...
The real question is, "does god have freewill?"

Are "god's" thoughts and actions a result of "god's nature", or are they totally random (free)?
#17
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Typically, you have already humanised the god principle.

Maybe GOD is the ultimate accumulation of knowledge which will inevitably result in only one determined purpose....Creation or re-creation.
#18
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
More knowledge = fewer options = less freewill

Perfect knowledge = 1 perfect option = no freewill
#19
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
Nobody thinks that there isn't a difference between being coerced and not being coerced.
COOPERATION =/= RISK AVOIDANCE
RISK AVOIDANCE = COERCION
COERCION is COERCION whether it is EXPLICIT or IMPLICIT.
#20
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ebuc
I prefer masturbation of absolute and relative truths.
That may be your preference, but I'll wager it usually ends with premature efactulation. That's an absolute
#21
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,047
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
F-Law....."That may be your preference, but I'll wager it usually ends with premature efactulation. That's an absolute"...

F-law, your clueless beause your a  "premature" baby and  this is why you block me. Your ego is in constant fear of absolute and relative truths.

Sad :--(  lack of moral and intellectual integrity.



#22
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Yep...On the face of it seems like a reasonable equation.
#23
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
Libertarian free will is provably impossible whether determinism is true or false.
Would you mind proving or offering proof of its impossibility?
#24
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,047
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
..."More knowledge = fewer options = less freewill"...

More knowledge may lead to ability to see more options ergo the above is false.

Ex experience leads to ability to see more options aka wise old human.
#25
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
More knowledge may lead to ability to see more options ergo the above is false.
Imagine a chess grandmaster.

Does the chess grandmaster have more (or fewer) options than a novice?

Doesn't the novice face MORE options to move their pieces?

Doesn't the grandmaster know the "best move" for every board?
#26
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
@simplybeourselves
Libertarian free will is provably impossible whether determinism is true or false.
Would you mind proving or offering proof of its impossibility?
Libertarian freewill is the idea that a human can make a "decision" that is fully independent of all previous events.

Any "decision" (action) that is fully independent of all previous events is by definition, indistinguishable from RANDOM.

And a RANDOM act is not and cannot possibly be considered an act of WILL.

Ipso facto, libertarian freewill is incoherent (provably FALSE).
#27
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,047
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
..."Does the chess grandmaster have more (or fewer) options than a novice?"...

Yes, your speaking of a cosmic-like limits, that I do not disagree, that a game has finite set of rules just as Universe has complentary set of cosmic physical laws principles. What I was refering to was within that finite set, the individuals experience or mental abilities may allow them to see more options within that finite set.

You cannot argue that point, just as I cannot argue a finite set of rules to a game. However, the rules of a game can be changed, whereas the more cosmic set of complementary metaphysical-1, physical cosmic laws/principles are eternal.


...ex there can only exist five regular/symmetrical convex polyhedron of Universe....
 
.."Doesn't the novice face MORE options to move their pieces?"..

The use of the word "options" in the sense you have used means 'roadblocks'.  What roadblocks do ---like rules--- is force people to look for options/altenatives, tho they may not see them for some time if not months or years later.

.."Doesn't the grandmaster know the "best move" for every board?"..

Yes they do, and the old grandmasters are beaten by the newest ones, the computer that are #1 at Chess and Go.

I seem to recall reading that the computer can just see --read finds so many possible scenario moves in databank/memory-- so many more options in such shorter periods of time than a human, and that is why they win. 


And again, games rules can be altered and often do in baseball, football etc as new scenarios occur. Same goes for electrical, plumbing etc municipal 
communities. 

Technologies change also. 3D chess on 3 playing boards.  Not sure how that worked exactly as I never played it. Tho that might not change the basis set of finite rules. I dunno

#28
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
-->
@Athias
Sure, here's the proof in written form:

In the free will debate, Strawson holds that there is a fundamental sense in which free will is impossible, whether determinism is true or not. He argues for this position with what he calls his "basic argument", which aims to show that no-one is ever ultimately morally responsible for their actions, and hence that no one has free will in the sense that usually concerns us. In its simplest form, the basic argument runs thus:
  1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
  2. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are—at least in certain crucial mental respects.
  3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
  4. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.[4]
This argument resembles Arthur Schopenhauer's position in On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, summarised by E. F. J. Payne as the "law of motivation, which states that a definite course of action inevitably ensues on a given character and motive".

Source of quote:


And here is the same philosopher giving the argument in video form:




#29
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Libertarian freewill is the idea that a human can make a "decision" that is fully independent of all previous events.
Where did you ascertain this definition? Or did you conceive it yourself?

Any "decision" (action) that is fully independent of all previous events is by definition, indistinguishable from RANDOM.
That would depend on how one defines "random"? What description of random can you offer that necessitates its qualifying and action, event, or phenomenon as "fully independent?"

And a RANDOM act is not and cannot possibly be considered an act of WILL.
Once again: that depends on how one defines random. So how do you define random?

Ipso facto, libertarian freewill is incoherent (provably FALSE).
This remains to be seen. Once you substantiate your premises, then you can render falsehood.

#30
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@simplybeourselves

--> @Athias
Sure, here's the proof in written form:

In the free will debate, Strawson holds that there is a fundamental sense in which free will is impossible, whether determinism is true or not. He argues for this position with what he calls his "basic argument", which aims to show that no-one is ever ultimately morally responsible for their actions, and hence that no one has free will in the sense that usually concerns us. In its simplest form, the basic argument runs thus:
  1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
  2. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are—at least in certain crucial mental respects.
  3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
  4. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.[4]
This argument resembles Arthur Schopenhauer's position in On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, summarised by E. F. J. Payne as the "law of motivation, which states that a definite course of action inevitably ensues on a given character and motive".

Source of quote:


And here is the same philosopher giving the argument in video form:


As it stands now, it's merely a claim. I believe the interviewer summarily rebuffs Strawson's argument by pointing out his refusal to define the mind as a closed "material" system. Without doing as much, what does "the way we are" mean? He never substantiates this part of his premise. And without defining it, how can he allege that it's not "causa sui"?

And Arthur Schopenhauer wouldn't agree with Strawson's position, and instead refer to it as  a "spurious a priori." And I'd have to agree. Schopenhauer believed that one could reorient their perspective on the nature of experience, rather than extend the prejudices of culture.