Message from @PerformedShelf
Discord ID: 504751107575119872
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
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.
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
I am saying there is one consciousness, being described as having three different parts
Only because we lack the ability to define the distinctions
And that if we have one consciousness, and that the physiological human brain is only capable of suporting a single consciousness, how can we reconcile that our consciousness can join with a God's
I would argue you join with God through the comprehension of the Divine.