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

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.

That is where the idea of Gnosticism comes from.

Gnosis, insight on the Divine, is what allows one to achieve enlightenment and with it salvation.

But earlier you said that something with a consciousness like our own, you would consider human. Now, the definition we have come to on human consciousness, is not enough. Therefore, logically, either a supernatural consciousness exists, or it does not.

The archetypal Human in Gnosticism is called Anthropos.

Thats just a different way of saying human in Greek

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Kadmon#Gnosticism

Most Gnostic language is taken from Greek because Gnosticism emerged from Neoplatonic philosophy.

The idea is that the archetypal man is a divine being, and really this doesn't have an affect on factual reality, it is not necessarily supernatural because it is not claiming the divine directly contacts factual reality.

If God's consciousness is corporeal, and untainted by the material world, not tainted by contact with matter, how can a human with a single consciousness contact it?

Let alone become one with t

And, if any humna did do that, or ever did do that, that consciousness would no longer be corporeal