And that is probably the more canonical interpretation

Her intent was to find out the truth, her actions were done under the supposition that the snake was telling the truth

Snake dindu nuffin

She has free will, but decided to act based upon an incorrect supposition

She lacked the knowledge to know that the snake was evil

Another argument would be that the existence of the tree and the snake prove that there was free will, because without the ability to explore those options, your will is not free due to being shackled through limitations

That is a more apt way of putting it

So according to that way of thinking, you do innately have free will

But, if your consciousness is joined by that of an external party, then surely you no longer have free will

Because when your will is no longer your own, it cannot be free

If put into semantics it would be better to say you innately have 1/3 free will.

Your soul is your own, at least a normal persons soul is their own.

You're spirit is aspect of your consciousness that you do not control with free will, your subconscious.

And you're body is innately limiting, because its flesh and material.

To have full free will is to have absolute control over the nature of existence

That is not true

What you will becomes what is

Free will is the ability to manfest your intentions to the world

You're right, I should've said full free will is absolute control over your being

Which I would argue the regular person has

Can you control when you sweat?

Via my autonomic nervous system, yes

So you do not consciously do it

It is not your choice to sweat

But it is not my intent to overheat, therefore my body automatically does what it ca

I could sit in the heat, or move to the shade

I understand what you're saying, but I am being pedantic for the sake of nullifying deconstructionism. I am being as literal as possible when I say full free will, I am essentially talking about nirvana in a way, where your will and being transcend the environment around you.

If I intended to overheat, my free will allowing me so, I would sit in the heat regardless and sweat

Because as an example there are Buddhist monks who work to master control over their body. A notable case is of certain monks being able to regulate their body temperature through will.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harvard-study-confirms-tibetan-monks-can-raise-body-temperature-with-their-minds/

That would mean that through training, people can exert their conscious will into being

Yes

Which would confirm that it is not strictly necessary to seperate the parts of our consciousness

They of course interact with each other

It may be that certain aspects of the same thing are being held as distinct when in actual fact they are the same

What do you mean by them being the same?

Do you not think there a distinct forces that together form consciousness?

Instead of splitting into three aspects of 'consciousness' it is merely consciousness

I have been saying it is one consciousness throughout this entire conversation

One conscious made by three parts

If you have two parts you have no consciousness