Stimulus-Response and Reflection

The main problem with the Stimulus-Response model of behavior is not that it never applies, but rather that it does not always apply. There are undeniably cases, e. g. when the arrival of rain is responded to by the seeking of protection, when it holds. However, e. g. when rain arrives in the course of a walk that one has been taking, the question is not what to do about the rain, but about the walk. Now, the latter still seems to easily lend itself to S-R interpretation, but not if the entire situation is fully reflective. If one has reflectively gone out for a walk, and it starts to rain, what occurs is not a stimulus, but a variation of, in the form of an addition to, what one had been doing, i. e. I have been out walking, and now I am feeling the rain as well. What occurs next will be any one of a number of possible variations--stopping the walk completely, e. g. running to shelter, stopping the feeling of rain, e. g. putting up an umbrella, or continuing on, e. g. walking in the rain. Again, it might still be argued that these are only possible reponses to the rain. But what eliminates the rain/stimulus entirely from the structure of the situation is that those three possibilities--stopping completely, continuing with variation, or simple continuation, are available at any instant of any activity, regardless of whether or not some new stimulus enters the situation. So, the S-R model is inadequate specifically to reflective behavior. Or, to put it another way, Individual behavior is not of an S-R structure.