Would you say we choose our reactions from a pre-determined, limited pallete or, is there always the option to invent new reactions, adding to our selection?

Dan.

May I add to that thought saying that it is a potential which reacts to an actual?

Arjen,

:)Interesting, back to the chicken or the egg or, the lock presumes its key. Yes, consciousness in general is potential for the actual, as the physical world as the actual, presumes a potential to be known. Sounds a bit like Schopenhauer's subject and object stand or fall together, take one away, the other disappears.

Vey true, the question comes to mind that this is all just a universal being conjured up by our reason. An explanation for this thought is that it facilitates free will. Without a construction such as this free will cannot exist; only cause and effect can. But that should be no basis for any thought.

I would need to be able to will myself to drink and with that thought be drinking. Walking is a compromise, a manipulation of the environment as is everything else, and hence everything is a reaction.

Buddhist philosophy would say something here... I don't know what it would say so I'll say something:

I might like to say that desire and neccessity are two ends of a pole; a pole known as our will - so if the drink was borne of necessity then there would not be a compromise, when it is borne of desire there is a compromise among those other things you could be doing, such as sitting on the sofa. I'll explain slightly and say that (necessity) if one is walking to the tap one is already engaged in drinking, one cannot separate the walking, turning and consumption required for the drinking to occur.

I wouldn't disagree that most things are a reaction, however 'reaction' in itself is a dichotomy (cause and effect) and I would highly doubt that at the origin of existence we find a dichotomy.

Buddhist philosophy would say something here... I don't know what it would say so I'll say something:

I might like to say that desire and neccessity are two ends of a pole; a pole known as our will - so if the drink was borne of necessity then there would not be a compromise, when it is borne of desire there is a compromise among those other things you could be doing, such as sitting on the sofa. I'll explain slightly and say that (necessity) if one is walking to the tap one is already engaged in drinking, one cannot separate the walking, turning and consumption required for the drinking to occur.

I wouldn't disagree that most things are a reaction, however 'reaction' in itself is a dichotomy (cause and effect) and I would highly doubt that at the origin of existence we find a dichotomy.

According to Thomas Hobbes (if i interpret him correctly), the human mind works on memory, ideas, and impressions. These create experience and imagination. Ideas are more subtle then impressions and as such are more open to juxtaposition with other ideas and impressions which create complex ideas and therefore create new thought or imagination. The juxtaposition of impressions and impression create complex impressions and therefore create new perceptions. So in essence the human mind is a purely reactive mechanism. Due to the fact the the juxtaposition of memory and current stimuli be it on the level of purely a priori mind object in the form of ideas or in the a posteriori level of the physical in the form of impressions or vice versa. The human mind reacts to its objects in the present juxtaposed with the object of mind in memory and imagination. So to answer your question in my view the reactions are not predetermined to a great extent but are limited to the plane of individual experience. Because epistemologically one cannot know or have memory beyond ones own perception according to kant. But in a lifetime of experience coupled with current perception and the theory of imagination according to Hobbes (which i agree with) the amount of reaction is theoretically infinite.

Arjen,

"A universal being conjured up by our reason, which facilitates free will?" Do you mean that the physical world is the universal being, how then does the physcial world facilitate free will? The world is a world of possiabilities, there is indeed choice involved, that is the only thing which constitutes free will, choice, but, you cannot not chose, for again, inaction to a stimulus is still, a reaction. Free will exists only in the sense of choices. Cause and effect does not exist, there is but relational reactions often thought of as strife and/or chemistry. I am not at all sure I am understanding you, are you saying that in a world which provides all possiabilities one could react to, it provides no basis of thought?

I am making the distinction between actuality and potentiality. I think you do not, am I correct in thinking that?

@ de budding:
A comepletely causal system refutes itself because it needs a first mover. That is why I do not think causality can exist without potentiality.