Yes, you are both causal creatures to each other, due to the fact that Red is an element of your physical outside world and vice-versa. You are part of Red's physical outside world, thus you can motivate just by being, just as the world motivates creatures just by being.

The problem with what you’re saying is that Red’s world and my world are quite different, even though we occupy the same environment. Our minds and bodies innately shape the world differently. What this indicates is that to a large extent I don’t react to the ‘outside’ world but to my internal representation of the world. Many human actions are based on social constructs or things that don’t actually exist. For example, Red will never realize the value of money and consequently it could never motivate him. In the human world money is probably the most widely accepted fiction there is, and obviously it can be highly motivating. If an alien behaviorist from outer-space visited earth and wanted to understand human behavior surrounding money they would need to learn what it is or form mental representations of it in their own minds. Depending on how their minds model reality that may be easy, difficult, or like Red, impossible.

Also, I can motivate and condition myself, with long-term abstract goals that require sacrifices and may only offer a potential reward. That is human action.

The object of motivation, and one needs object inorder for the mind to function at all. In other words, there has to be something in the outside world which you wish to create an effect/change in, this is motivation, and by definition of motivation, it is necessarily reaction. Again human action is not a reality anywhere, under any conditions. It is just an impossiablity, whether you are talking about Red or yourself.

there has to be something in the outside world which you wish to create an effect/change in, this is motivation, and by definition of motivation, it is necessarily reaction. — boagie

How does this rule of yours apply to conditioning yourself, as with breaking or forming a habit? If I deliberately form a habit in myself I'm not changing anything in the "outside world", nor is there any external object that motivates me. Say I have a habit of dwelling on misfortunes and because at some point I realize that it's causing me some unpleasant feelings I decide to stop dwelling on misfortunes and think more positive thoughts. Though my mood improves nothing physically changes in the world, besides some alterations in my neural pathways. According to your rule I would not be able to break the habit because there is no external motivation to do so or nothing to cause a reaction.

Anything you do in the outside world is first cognitively motivated by the outside world, and by this definition is reaction NOT an action. The being of the outside world could be said to be action through being and is of your cause of motivation. If you understand this, there is no exception to it in the desire to change a habit that effects you badly. The habit that effects you badly is effecting your body's well-being in the world. The fact that you have altered a motivation to a different motivation of acting in the world, does not negate that all motivations fulfilled in the world are reactions. There is only one source of motivation, and that is the physical world's Affect upon you.

Anything you do in the outside world is first cognitively motivated by the outside world, and by this definition is reaction NOT an action. — boagie

This is clearly false. Thirst, hunger, and the desire for sex, are encoded into our dna, and what could be more internal than that. We’re even inherently motivated to consume specific kinds of food, such as those high in fat and sugar. In fact, on a daily basis we may have to internally chose to override our inherent motivations because they’re unhealthy or not socially acceptable. We have the capacity of reason and therefore we can contemplate how to best navigate the outside world in pursuit of our chosen goals. Granted we react in many circumstances, but as I’ve mentioned several times, we can train ourselves to react in particular ways.

Yes, you have a choice, the only choice you do not have is that of not reacting. You will react in some way, it is the nature of the beast, all organisms are reactive creatures. You may be inhibited from reacting in certain ways due to context, so you react in another way. Hunger is a need of something in the outside world, a necessity, an energy source. Yes, you have the ability to reason, to change your mind, and to not react in this way, but to react in another. It is through reaction that evolutionary adaptation occurs through time, reacting to the environment, to mutation and to death. "We can train ourselves to react in certain ways." This is true, but in order to react, one must be motivated to do so, which makes it a reaction. Again, all organisms are reactionary creatures to the larger reality of the physical world.

Yes, you have a choice, the only choice you do not have is that of not reacting. … you have the ability to reason, to change your mind, and to not react in this way, but to react in another. — boagie

Basically all you’re saying is that everything in the physical world reacts. If you drop a rubber ball it will bounce when it hits the ground or if you bounce it on someone’s face they will react in some way to this stimulus. If everything is reaction then nothing is reaction and the term becomes meaningless.

Hunger is a need of something in the outside world, a necessity, an energy source. — boagie

The hunger or, as you say, “cognitive motivation” doesn’t come from apples or mom’s meatloaf, it is inherent to our body/mind, which isn’t the outside world, right?

The ultimate question is, is there such a thing as human action, apparently you still believe so. Cognitive motivation comes from the outside world, the outside world is the fuel of the mind, substract consciousness/mind, and the object/world disappears, subtract object/the physical world and the consciousness/mind disappears. This mutual dependency of reciprocation cause and effect identifies the physical world as the being of cause, the organism the being of reaction to a larger reality.

If mind and matter are mutually dependent then it is a completely arbitrary distinction to claim that one is cause and the other reacts to that cause.

Any system thought of as a whole, has functioning parts that constitute said wholeness. Without the functioning of all parts, the whole would be of a different nature. That is the present problem with the environment, the unnatural behaviours of mankind lead to a drastic change in the climate as a whole. The continuation of said unnatural behaviours could be said to be suicidal. Only apparent reality is dependent upon human biology, the world will continue, just without humanity and the many other organisms humanity will take with it, in this suicidal journey. The presence of the organism man historically has had no damaging effect upon the environment as a whole, until basically the beginning of the industrial revolution to the present day.

That which exists is a cause, that which reacts to existence is an effect, so, a subject in this sense is both cause and effect but, the subject is not cause to itself, as part of the physical world the subject is cause for the reaction of other subjects, including incrementally the physical world.