Action is due to a stimulus, which causes a response.
To me it seems illogical because a stimulus is an action, and thus, “action is due to an action,” which to be true would mean there is no beginning action.
A stimulus doesn’t have to be an action.
True.
Read the first paragraph of the first chapter of Human Action.
A sentient stimulus? Who stimulated the stimulus? Also, action could be due to negation of stimulus. I can act because stimulus yields. My stimulus is more stimulating than their stimulus. Stimulating passivity? Stimulating sleep? Stimulating death? Stimulating inertness? Stimulating nothingness? Stimulating unstimulation? The anti-stimulator?
Your statement presupposes action is is a response. Your statement can be torn apart just by asking you to define what exactly you are talking about. Define the words, one by one and then we shall see what your statement means. A response to what? Can’t even say that thought is stimulus because thought is an action, which is a response in your sentence. I guess God is the great stimulator, or wait, Mr. Bernanke is.
Looks like circular logic to me. No answer.
Modern cognitive science rejects it, based on the poverty of the stimulus argument. Google it.