No Human Action, It Is All Reaction

@Didymos Thomas,

I disagree with the initial thesis. It's an important problem of ethics that we do not just choose between reactions on conquests but have to decide ourselfes what to do. The key question of ethics is "What should I do?", not "How should I react?".

@Jazzman phil,

Jazzman wrote:

The key question of ethics is "What should I do?"

I'd modify this slightly. The key question of ethics is "What should one do?" Ethics as a philosophy is meant to be generalizable.

@Aedes,

Accepted. I was just quoting Mr. Kant Wink

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

I'd modify this slightly. The key question of ethics is "What should one do?" Ethics as a philosophy is meant to be generalizable.

Aedes,

In an entirely relational world that is all there is, is choice, no problem with it being generalizable.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Are you saying that the notion of cause and effect is grounded in the belief in human action?

I'm trying to wrap my head around your connection of cause and effect and action, in truth, being reaction. I mean, if everything is a reaction, shouldn't there be something that is being reacted to? For example, if I move my hand as a reaction, isn't there a cause of my reaction? And isn't
my reaction the effect of the cause?

I also have another concern - if everything is a reaction, is reality on loop? Otherwise, it seems like there must be some initial action to set off the chain of reactions.

Didymos,

What I am saying is that the belief in human action is based upon the theory of cause and effect. In our relationship to the earth, as organisms we react, thus change and adapt, the effect of our presence and activity though minimal in comparison, is a reaction to our existence by the world at large.

Interesting Thomas I had not taken it there, is it a loop, possiably it is an open system so, yes I guess so, perhaps you could expand on that suggestion. "If I move my hand as a reaction, is there not a cause of my reaction." The physical world is what we react to, if being could be said to be an action, then the physical world is that said action, there are always choices to ones reactions to object. There is always the first cause presented in these arguments but, there is no reason to assume there was ever a first anything. Even the big bang as the intial first cause if true, is probably just part of an on going relation process. One thing you can be sure of is, that the belief in cause and effect has structured our language and formed our thoughts.

@boagie,

Quote:

What I am saying is that the belief in human action is based upon the theory of cause and effect. In our relationship to the earth, as organisms we react, thus change and adapt, the effect of our presence and activity though minimal in comparison, is a reaction to our existence by the world at large.

So, is cause and effect, in your view, illusory or an accurate description of how things occur?

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

So, is cause and effect, in your view, illusory or an accurate description of how things occur?

Didymos Thomas:)

I am not real sure but, inaccurate at least. In a said human action, where an individual brings together the qualities of two different objects, conditions, or states that there might be a reaction to the qualities of one another, he is the vehicle of said process, what motivated him to do so is another question, another reaction. Actually with cause it is difficult to imagine cause as independent, autonomous, and infering a certain degree of separation, that is probably why it has been attributed to God. The fact that the earth is an open system might hint at the unlikelihood of cause being local, if indeed at all actual.

@boagie,

Didymos,

Do you honestly believe that without perception to interpret actions and events in the universe, the universe would be in pure randomness. Or would it rather just be undefined?

Except for the very beginning of time being of pure randomness (thats just my opinion), there had to be some causal influences as to why there is life today.
I mean there may not be a being that has a cause for humanity, we are without a purpose in that sense, but there are always going to be forces that influence the effect so as for it to be somewhat predictable.

I always thought that cause and effect was a way of rationalizing events, thus making our actions reactions in conscious cases.

I don't understand what is meant by "no human action, it is all reaction". The reaction is still human orientated.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday,

Reaction you might say is your relation to the world at large, it is to the physical world to which you must adapt or perish, you have unlimited choice in which to react to object or the physical world, the one aspect where you have no choice is in the fact that you cannot, NOT REACT.
A conscious inaction/noreaction is of necessity still a response, and a reaction to your environment. The theory of cause and effect has shaped our language and thus our thinking, so it might be difficult to shift to a concept of a relational world, where in complex systems, it is impossiable to descern cause and effect, many many variables are both cause and effect and seemingly in these systems they not linear, but complex relational process.

Relational Studies - Theses

Relational quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@boagie,

Yes, but why wouldn't you not want to react. That's just a part of what life is. Seems kind of silly to be a stagnant figure.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Yes, but why wouldn't you not want to react. That's just a part of what life is. Seems kind of silly to be a stagnant figure.

Holiday:)

The point is there is only free will where there is choice, a least in one aspect of human existence there indeed is no choice. Besides that it underlines the nature of your activity as an organism, you react, you do not act.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Holiday:)

The point is there is only free will where there is choice, a least in one aspect of human existence there indeed is no choice. Besides that it underlines the nature of your activity as an organism, you react, you do not act.

Correct, if there is no choice, then your will is just a slave to the free will of another, therefore you would have no "free" will of your own.

@No0ne,

All reaction's, are action's and reaction's

For example,
(-)'s are action's, (_)'s are reaction's made from the action before it
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

A reaction is just a action triggered by the previous action, so on and so on until you reach the start of the chain of event's, and at that start would be an action that has not been triggered by a previous action, therefore it would not be a "re"action.

So, In the example above... there would be no (-)'s, they would all be (_)'s, there would only be one (-) and it would be at the start of all the (_)'s.

So in a way, there would be no human action, just reaction to the environment around them.

That environment could be a naturaly accuring action that result's in the following chain of reaction's. An example is the need for food and water.

An example of a start action made by humanity would be money.

Yet really even a start action that has not been triggered by a previous action, could be said to still be triggered by a previous action therefore making it still just a reaction...(tracing back to the big bang to the first true action that unfolded and resulted in the creation of are present world, seem's to be a endless trace, that end's where are lack of physical proof end's)

Like a loop that has no start and no end.

It seem's clear that it's true that in a way there are no action's, but just reaction's from the environment around us.

@No0ne,

No0ne wrote:

Correct, if there is no choice, then your will is just a slave to the free will of another, therefore you would have no "free" will of your own.

NoOne,

It is not so much that one is inslaved to another, though as part of your context for existence I imagine that does playout somewhat. The world at large is the system in which you as an individual system inhabit, and it is to the larger system you must adapt or perish.

L.S.B. Leaky anthropologist, his advice to humanity, "Change Or Perish."

@No0ne,

No0ne wrote:

All reaction's, are action's and reaction's

For example,
(-)'s are action's, (_)'s are reaction's made from the action before it
/-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-\

Every action start's as reaction from the action before it so on and so on till you come to the first true action that has not started from a reaction from an action before it.

So only there are only to true action's, the start, and the end.
Everything in the middle are just "re"action's
It can reacure infintly
(i got to finsih later[/quote

NoOne,

Yes the world view of linear cause and effect is European in nature, in many parts of the world and with many peoples the world view is one of a relational nature. As, you say anything can be both cause and effect, within a complex system, one cannot descern a linear process of cause and effect, the intricate relational nature of a complex system is of interdependance.

@boagie,

I still don't see the problem. Yeah, we have no real free will, because we can't choose not to react, and our reaction is partially influenced from the will of another. So we have no pure will or free will. We still have will though. Isn't that good enough, I mean the will is not going to change from that.

Life would not have meaning if our will was purely free. We react to the will of another and we want to. Perhaps our will is to change the will of another. If I have an opinion that contradicts yours then you will want to change my opinion to be like yours. Or perhaps you don't care. But then that means you are free to react not being influenced from the will of another.

Free will could not be possible in the amount you refer to as actual free will. Just trying to sum it up for myself, I'm sure you've already gotten this far.

@Holiday20310401,

Hi Holiday! Smile

Most people seem to be concerned about choice, for most it is the defining term of freewill and in the context of being in the world, one has unlimited choice, one just does not have the ability not to choose. Indeed freewill is mythical, does our biology which is governed by the physcial world from which it arose, not mold us into an adaptive shape for continued survival, speices is as a fluid to the physical world which must take on the shape the world dictates.

@boagie,

Yes but what is better for living? To be absolutely free in choice or to be influenced and thus not have 'true' free will?
Reactions are all relative, not to mention if there was pure free will like you are getting at then all of your potential would be set to 'actions' not reaction, and actions mean that there is no real point to them. And there wouldn't be anyways because in order to have absolute pure free will would mean that you would be the only living being able to cognate the idea of causality.

@Holiday20310401,

Hoiliday,

My point was that there is no free will, entertaining the idea of free will is the general misconception humanity starts with. Humanity uses language to make it seem reasonable that the complexity of the world follows the straight line of cause and effect. One thing that seems to be missing in this concept for most people is the idea of the process involved, you have two objects, conditons and/or states, bringing them together is not the whole ball of wax, when there is reaction between the two above, the product of the said reaction arises from the reacton of the qualites of both said objects, conditons or states. So when you have two things in reaction process how do you descern which one to call cause and which one effect, and what about the product of the said reaction, is that not also said to be effect.

:perplexed:On a human level most people believe that with the formation of intent thus folllows human action, this is just not so, the formation of intent is simply a selection process out of the immediate possiablities of choices considered, intent then is the motivation for the said reaction, and there is no reaction without motivation, without intent---thus inescapably it is, reaction.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

I still don't see the problem. Yeah, we have no real free will, because we can't choose not to react, and our reaction is partially influenced from the will of another. So we have no pure will or free will. We still have will though. Isn't that good enough, I mean the will is not going to change from that.

Life would not have meaning if our will was purely free. We react to the will of another and we want to. Perhaps our will is to change the will of another. If I have an opinion that contradicts yours then you will want to change my opinion to be like yours. Or perhaps you don't care. But then that means you are free to react not being influenced from the will of another.

Free will could not be possible in the amount you refer to as actual free will. Just trying to sum it up for myself, I'm sure you've already gotten this far.

When you say "We react to the will of another" Dont forget that nature is the real first non-human action that has made the need to react to it, for the need of self presavation, it's not just that people want to, it's a madder of WE MUST to live how we or another want's us to live.

Philosophy Forum

No Human Action, It Is All Reaction

Quick Links

My Account

able2know