Who is the ultimate decision maker?

The answer seems simple:

Either "me" or something else in my brain makes them.

Because anyway, it has to be "somebody" at the end of the causal chain to make the decision so that something can eventually happen.

Hume's causal connection theory tells that one thing doesn't necessarily lead to another thing. All causal connections are only some inductions resulted from the capability to memorize.  We have memory, we gather different events/phenomenon together then compare them, and we found differences, then we built concepts for them and memorizes the connection/relationship between these events/phenomenon. And this's all.

It's all source of every thing we know until now. It means that it's the basic model for each piece of knowledge/belief we know.

Hume's right. But not enough.

Because the real reason that causality isn't true is not the A doesn';t necessirily cause B, It's that there is no A and B.

This is not easy to understand for most of the people. Even me myself forget it frequently. Because we're all materialists. And this statement itself doesn't mean in common sense also. It doesn't only means that most of us are materialists. It means that , literally, all of us, including every human being which is now living in this world, even animals whomever have brains, are all materialists.

One cannot live in this world without materialism. Or say that, one should at least be a materialism first, then he can be something else.

And also, another shocking theory can be infered from this theory: There is no "idealism".

And it doesn't mean that there is no people who believes idealism or holds idealism. It means that THERE IS NO SUCH THING which is thought or treated as the thing that idealism really means.

Since there is no A and B, does it means that there is no anything at all?

The answer is NO and it's the only good thing we've found since the beginning of this essay.

Things exist. And we can also describe them. As anyway we want.

It seems that this sends the causality back on the table again.......?

Well, one can really think in this way. In some situations. And this is also why knowledge works/worked for a very long time and it worked so well that it even suppots the whole human civilization history.

But yet there's still a very tiny but extremely significant difference between this way and another wiser, more accurate way to understand it--- the philosophy way.

Philosophers always care about the foundation. The foundation of causality lies on the limit on the meaning of "description".

Just think about the meaning of it for a while.

......

I won't go into the detail of the discussion about what is a description. There's actually a new emerged theory named it and it also discusses/studies the same thing that what I'm discussing here. The philosophy inside it is quite simple. But I don't recommend people to look for and read it because it's really at it's very beginning stage and nothing to read inside it.

Carry on.

We can describe things, and Causal is one of the tools. How I describe the world doesn't equal to how I believe this world is.

Simply says, Description≠The world.

No matter who;s the speaker, they can never convince me that they are talking or they can talk about anything.

Only one thing have been existed so long: the universe itself.

But before we really get to know where the border of it is, we can never talk about the universe. This makes us the unability to talk about anything?

Yes.

And I think this is exactly why the most part of the universe doesn't talk except us --- The stupidest species who think it has wisdom(to talk about the universe).

But if we really accept this theory, another more serious problem comes in. Because as a "fact", we know that we though did talked, and that also did(at least seems) "worked"... How would that be explained after all??

The answer is a question:

Any thing we've got in the past or we're going to get, and any progresses we've "made" or going to acquire, do they really exist?

The answer is a even bigger NO.!

Nothing exists out of human's brain. Or say, Everything exists (only) in brain. This means that, so far, all we did are just entertaining ourselves. Entertainment is everything we've got until now.

Wait, if we can really entertain ourselves, that means we can still do something for ourselves, even without knowing a bit about the real universe, right?

True.

And this is maybe the most important thing we should keep in mind for the whole life. We do can never know the world, but that also doesn't equal to our disability to entertain ourselves.

So it comes to a result that though the desire for the ultimate truth is really stupid, but the desire for using the "world" is yet a very good thing to hold. Cause desires are by nature "good". Everything we want is "good" and it's not arguble since it's nature.

Because goodness is always relative to the individuals.

Conclusion:

"Who is the ultimate decision maker?" is not a right question.

All we should do is describe the world, use the world, and never ask how is the world. The attritude is important:

To describe, not to find out.

"Finding out" is an hulluciation which produces from wrong/unstrict reasoning.