“These examples seem to me to make it clear that ‘conscious purpose’ is not in any sense the ultimate or highest criterion of human behaviour, and that free-will need not be taken necessarily to mean the power to over-ride any laws of nature. In my view ‘free-will’ is simply the apparent characteristic of organic behaviour when no complete integration of the personality has been achieved and the mind seems to be able to oscillate from one purpose to another. We really have to deal in human beings with a whole series of forms of behaviour of increasing complexity and integration: reflex and instinctive actions, deliberate activity, and finally the intuitive whole-natured creative functioning which leads to ends which could not have been intellectually foreseen. To each of these must correspond a certain type of awareness, and in my view, a brain process of a definite degree of complexity. By analogy with our own experience of different modes of consciousness, we may be able to infer from the structure of the central nervous system of an organism what sort of awareness it can experience. “Eventually we must expect to be able to give a complete scheme of all organic behaviour in terms of the organic processes and their laws, but none the less it will remain a great deal more convenient in some cases to refer to what happens to human beings by using words that suggest their conscious experience. The behaviourist denies the scientific significance of all but the very barest elements of conscious experience, but of course he has to start from the human perception of light and colour. Science cannot get on without ideas which obtain their whole meaning from the qualities of conscious experience, and hence the extreme behaviourist position merely arises from a prejudice which prevents clear thinking. But as a campaign to put more stress on the direct observation of what really happens to living beings in terms of physical movements, behaviourism can only do good by bringing more unbiassed knowledge about life.