Best Guess

What is involved in the action of choice or reaction?

Every day a typical person makes dozens of choices and has dozens of reactions. What are the concepts involved in the process which the mind performs during these choices and reactions? 

I use the terms “choice” and “reaction” as the 2 basic types of processes which an individual can have, if the mind is used in a scenario of options. “Choice” is still a reaction, but refers to more in depth mind functions, using awareness and comprehension of factors involved in the options, and arguably requires conscious awareness. A reaction (involving the mind) by an individual, other than choice, can be considered subconscious reaction, which does not use conscious awareness. The function of subconscious reaction is likely quite relevant to this overall topic, and I explain more detail of my understanding of subconscious, in a post from about 10 months ago; Subconscious Subjection.

Many reactions and choices throughout the day might seem obvious to do, but it seems that basically every situation involves the mind making a best guess, whether the individual is aware of it or not. Assuming that nobody has perfect knowledge, that means no choice or reaction is 100% certainly correct. If every choice or reaction is not 100% certain, then the reaction is only determined by the best guess which that individual can make, based on the information they have. Whether the estimate is 99.999% probable, based on the information they have, or 1% probable (if all other options are less), it can still be considered only some degree of a guess. 

In the scenario of conscious choice, the mind accesses memories of information relevant to the factors involved as options. Usually cause and effect will be comprehended through conscious analysis of how the involved factors will interact, and whichever factor is estimated to cause the most preferable reaction, will be chosen. This process is a best estimate based on memory information of cause and effect, which involves understanding of the interaction of factors. I explained more detail of my understanding of this concept of conscious thought, in a post from almost 2 yrs ago; Conscious Comprehension. 

In the scenario of subconscious reaction, the mind still accesses memories of the factors involved, but does not access details of cause and effect, or how the factors interact. The mind will access memories of the closest resembling factors, and result in a reaction to the options, based on positive or negative reinforcement linked with those factors. Without the awareness of the individual, the mind will cause a reaction of pursuing factors saved in memory with positive reinforcement, or avoiding factors saved with negative reinforcement. This is still a concept of best guess (if the term “guess” includes subconscious memory access), as the subconscious is determining a reaction to the options, which is the most probable based on the information it has.

Which situations are considered to require a choice or reaction, is indistinct, and it may be plausible that every single action an individual takes, as a result of using memory access, involves some degree of the concept of best guess. Some situations may have 2 or more distinct options which need to be chosen between, or reacted to, but most situations do not have such distinct options. For eg, you may have 2 distinct options of which shirt to wear today, but the options of how quickly, or what time you put the shirt on, does not have such distinct options. Every subtle movement or motion that you take (such as to stretch your leg, or even adjust your foot position by 1 cm) is a reaction caused by memory access, and could be considered some degree of a best estimate. Since options are indistinct, as everything seems to be to some degree (as I further explained in a post from about 1.5yrs ago; Indistinctivity), this makes scenarios which are considered applicable for making a choice, indistinct as well.

Since it seems there is no perfect memory access of information, this means that every reaction of the mind, is only making a guess of probability, based on the best information it has. Whether its consciously choosing, based on analysis of likely cause and effect, or subconsciously reacting, based on probability of reinforcement triggers linked with memory of factors, every action taken in life, seems to come down to a Best Guess. 

Faith Fundamentals

What are the fundamentals for something to be considered faith?

A simplified description of “faith”, from my understanding, might be; believing something without complete evidence. 

A technical definition is; “complete trust or confidence in someone or something.”

In further analysis, it seems arguable that there may be no such thing as “complete” evidence or trust. There are varying degrees of everything (as I further explained in a post from 1.5 yrs ago; Indistinctivity), and when it comes to someone’s perspective of certainty, it’s plausible that nothing is 100% (as I argued in a post from 3+yrs ago; Open). This means that someone could easily have the perspective that there is no “complete evidence” for anything, since even if something has been proven 1 billion times, there’s still a possibility that the next test will have different results. This suggests that according to my 1st definition, every belief of someone could be considered “faith”. But according to the technical definition, if someone does not have “complete” trust in anything, then none of their beliefs count as “faith”. 

This is relevant to distinguish that any belief by someone is likely to have some degree of evidence, and some degree of trust and confidence.
Perhaps a better definition is; strong trust or confidence in something without strong evidence.
“Strong” is a bit vague, and open for interpretation, but allows adaptability for which circumstances fit the concept. A lack of evidence seems necessary for the definition, since common interpretation of the term “faith” does not seem to include something with an overwhelming amount of evidence.

What degree of confidence or trust counts as faith? Outlining degrees of trust becomes obscure, as there’s no distinct measurement of how much someone believes in something, but perhaps someone's actions based on a belief is the best method of measurement. If someone is willing to act on a belief, it could be considered that they have strong trust in that belief. But it still becomes indistinct, when it's taken into consideration; which situations they act on. Someone may act on a belief in some situations, but not others, and it may come down to the individuals estimate of risk and reward. 

For eg, someone may trust their own car and driving capabilities, enough to act on driving, but there may still be situations where they would not take the action of driving, if there is higher risk, or less reward. If the roads are a bit icy, they may consider the risk too high, and no longer trust driving. But then if there was significant reward, of perhaps $10 000, they might then trust their car enough to act on driving in those same icy conditions. This person seems to have “faith” in their car and driving capabilities, in some scenarios, but not others. 

The degree of evidence may be another component of faith. If someone has significantly strong evidence of something, it seems to no longer fit the category of “faith”, as it would then be more of a belief or knowledge, which seems would be commonly interpreted to no longer require “faith”. If something has so much evidence that it is completely obvious, such as [fire will cause heat], or [humans need oxygen to live], then it seems to no longer fit the term “faith”. Similarly to trust, the degree of evidence which counts for “faith” seems to be obscure and relative to an individual's best estimate. Rather than requiring a higher degree (such as trust or confidence), faith seems to require a lower degree of evidence. Perhaps the degree of faith required for an action, is relative to the degree of evidence. The less evidence that someone is aware of, the more faith is required for them to trust and act.

It seems to come down to someone’s willingness to act on trust, despite a lack of evidence. Trust in any given concept is somewhat indistinct, since willingness to act on trust in that concept, can vary from 1 situation to another. Perhaps someone's trust in something can be distinguished for particular circumstances, and (despite being likely incalculable) the total of all situations included in the concept, can be (hypothetically) used to determine the overall degree of trust for that concept. This value could then be incorporated with the amount of evidence the individual is aware of, to discern some degree of faith. Surprisingly many situations and concepts in life, seem they could potentially fit some degree of; Faith Fundamentals. 

Evidence of Alteration

Is there, or could there be, evidence of God?

The answer may depend on the functions of God. I attempted to distinguish the basic general functions of the common interpretation of God, in a post from 11 days ago; Distinguishment of Divinity. From my perspective, in summary, it seems God's general functions are to allow humans to exist with free will, and to aid us to some degree, after that point. But whether or not there is, or could be, evidence of these functions, likely depends on the specific methods which God uses for these functions. 

There seems to be 2 basic mutually exclusive types of method of which God could function; scientific, or non-scientific. Scientific is basically as it sounds, in that God functions scientifically, and within the laws of physics. As far as I know, this is a lot less common of a belief, as most people who believe in God, seem to be more traditional, and in the case of Christians, take the Bible to be more literal. My personal beliefs are that God does function with scientific methods, as I’ve further questioned the potential of, in posts from 3 yrs ago; Methods of Miraculous Manipulation, and Control to Free, Allowance Degree, and a post from 17 days ago; Method of Guidance. 

I’ll refer to the 2nd type of method of God’s functioning as non-scientific, as I can’t think of any other word that fits the description (other than perhaps “magic”, but that may have more negative connotation, or be confused with human “magic tricks”). This type would be the common belief that God breaks the laws of physics, as his method of function. This type includes the “creation” belief, as well as that God often caused (and perhaps still does cause) situations to occur, including miracles, which would not be scientifically possible. 

Potential evidence of God may be dependent on which of these methods God uses, because if God is scientific, there may be no potential for solid evidence, but if God is non-scientific, it seems there could potentially be evidence. The definition of evidence may be relevant here, for distinguishing what counts or not. Evidence, in general, is technically defined as; “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” By this definition, many things could be used as evidence for either belief of God’s method type, as long as it “indicates” that belief. In this post, by the word “evidence” I’m insinuating the meaning of “empirical evidence”, which is technically; “information acquired by observation or experimentation, in the form of recorded data…”. So basically, I’m considering evidence to be verifiable through experiments and tests. 

By these terms, I suggest that there may be no potential evidence of a scientific God, because if God’s methods do not break the laws of physics, then anything which God causes to occur could not be proven to be caused by God, rather than regular, or fluke, circumstances. All occurrences could be explainable through scientific cause and effect of the laws of physics. 

It may still be possible for some suggestive evidence, in the form of prediction of occurrence, and statistical data verification. If predictions were made, of future occurrences, or data of past occurrences, that God would likely cause certain circumstances, and recorded data verified the prediction, it could be considered suggestive evidence. The only way for it to be empirical evidence, is if the predictions were accurate and reproducible. It seems unlikely that the evidence could fit that description, because (by my understanding) predictions of God altering circumstances are likely very difficult to predict and measure. Considering the obscurity of someone’s legitimate will for God to cause something is 1 thing. Another, is the lack of knowledge of any person to know what is the ultimate best outcome of any given circumstance, which may be requested of God. If God is truly all knowing, then a lot of circumstances would result differently than may be predicted, since God might cause results which indirectly affect something else, which would be near impossible for a person to know of, or take into consideration.

On the other hand, if God uses non-scientific methods, there may be the potential to prove that God causes some alterations within this world. If it was proven through measurement or experiment that a circumstance defies the laws of physics, this could be empirical evidence. 

Besides the difficulty of prediction of Gods alterations for either function method type of God, lack of direct confirmation of evidence of God could plausibly have an additional effect intended by God. As I further explained a hypothesis in my 2nd last post; Unknown Freedom, absolute knowledge of God, can cause an influence on free will, of ulterior motives, which may be dispreferable for an effective scenario of free will. 

Between the 2 types of Gods potential methods of function, it seems a scientific God would likely be unfalsifiable. It may be predictable to some degree of suggestive evidence, but predictions would likely be too inaccurate to be considered empirical evidence. A non-scientific God could potentially be provable of defying the laws of physics, but either way, if there is a God, it may be an intended effect, to have a lack of confirmable; Evidence of Alteration. 

   

Life Logic Philosopheering (post #200)

What am I talking about?

Since this is my 200th blog post, I’ll do another overview/ review, similar to my 100th post; Life Logic Philosophized (Post #100). It’s been only 15 months since my 100th post, so it seems I’ve doubled my total posts in only that time, compared to my (estimate of) 1st writing, being 4 yrs, 11 months ago. The amount of topics to write about, under the scope/ category/ concept of philosophy continues to surprise me. The concept of philosophy itself, is an interesting topic to question, hypothesize, and attempt to analyze and comprehend the factors and sub-concepts of. Philosophication  has been 1 of many interesting new topics I wrote about last year, some of which include that slightly confusing, yet oddly interesting and appealing sprinkling of irony, of applying a concept on itself (such as Questioning Questioning, or Learning Learning). 

Here is my category totals of topics which I have written about (highest-lowest). Some topics fit into multiple categories, so I try to apply the appropriate blog labels (including multiple), and some may be in the wrong category (but Categorically, as far as the concept of Indistinctivity goes, isn't everything a best estimate?;).

Psychogy: 68 (+38 since 100th post)

Perspectual: 32 (+17)

Dirivity of Divinity: 30 (+9)

Consciousity: 26 (+10)

Conceptary: 26 (+17)

Principlication: 15 (+9)

(I still seem to be missing 2 from my chart count, but still too lazy to figure out which)

Psychogy, meaning psychology and how the mind works, remains to be by far my biggest category, with more than double the # of posts of the runner up. This seems to be a fitting category for philosophy, since a lot about how the mind works, is yet to be understood. This leaves a lot of functions and processes within the mind to remain somewhat mysterious, with a lack of accurate details determined by science, as of yet. Perhaps somewhat ironic that the process we use to understand everything in this world, is still not very well understood. The fact that we use our minds for everything that we do, whether that's Conscious Recognition or reacting based on Subconscious Subjection, the various processes which take control as the Mind Driver, are perhaps the most significantly relevant concept in this world. If we can understand the mind, perhaps we can understand the core cause of virtually all occurrences resulting from human or animal interaction, and learn how to improve, and make adjustments to allow more preferable results. 

Perspectual has taken a step up as 1 of my most common categories. Being different aspects of perspective, it still has a lot to do with the mind, but perhaps less on the technical function, and more about how perception affects and influences the life of individuals. 

Dirivity of Divinity is still 1 of my bigger categories, since the concept of whether or not there is a God, and how that may influence the lifestyle of people, is quite significant. Determining specifics, and understanding potential functions relative to God, is perhaps the most difficult general concepts I’ve come across, and might be the most commonly misunderstood (by my estimate).  The Distinguishment of Divinity seems quite applicable for philosophy with its complexity, yet potentially profound implications.

Consciousity would be a sub category of Psychogy, but Conscious Comprehension is 1 of the most interesting and relevant specific topics, which has yet to be understood (by others ;). I havent increased many posts since my 100th, which are specific enough for this category, since I had already covered most aspects which seemed important to me, but I have incorporated the concept into many (probably the majority) of my overall posts, since the function of consciousness, seems to be relevant to most Psychogy, and even a lot of other categorized posts.

Conceptary comes near last, being a vague and general category for concepts, which roughly fit that description itself. 

Principlication seems like a significant category, since principles should be pretty relevant to lifestyle and society, but specific topics within the concept seem to run thin. 

My rate of writing philosophy seems to have increased since my 100th post, as it has yet to fail to spark my interest and enjoyment. I’ve continued with group discussion meetups, and individual conversations (some of which continue to be the most interesting and intriguing) with a couple people, and started some youtube videos, to add to my experience of philosopheering. In general, it seems to be somewhat underrated, but hopefully more people can come to realize the interest, and utilize the incredible applicability and usefulness, of philosophy.

Unknown Freedom

How does knowledge, or lack thereof, affect free will?

Uncertainty seems to be a required component for effective free will, as I hypothesized in my last post; Free Will Requirements. But to what degree should things be uncertain, and to what does that apply? Since the term “certain” insinuates an individual's belief of knowledge, regardless of the knowledge being correct, I’ll use the term “knowledge”, to refer to known information which is correct. It seems that a lack of knowledge needs to be involved in free will, because if an individual was completely knowledgeable of everything, then all choices by the individual would be so obvious, that it would be nearly (if not completely) predetermined. Free will implies ability to freely make choices, so if all knowledge was certain, choices would be so obvious, that there would be almost no point. It would be like inputting a math question into a calculator.

Hypothetically, to create any scenario of choice, there seems to be 2 major relevant categories of knowledge; factors, and intent for the scenario. Factors are anything involved in the choice, and intent for the scenario, is the reason that the scenario itself is being applied. Intent for the scenario seems relevant, because if someone has complete knowledge of ulterior reasons for the choice, that would likely affect their decision. For eg, if someone is given the scenario to choose to help an old lady cross the street, they might choose not to, if they are unaware that anyone else is watching, but they might alternatively choose to help the lady, if they are aware that the results will be recorded and made public. 

To create a scenario of general free will, it seems perhaps the individual with free will, should have a lack of complete knowledge of ulterior reasons for the scenario itself. If the individual has complete knowledge of an observer or any potential judgement, that would likely influence their choices. Complete knowledge would likely cause them to make choices for the main purpose of appealing to the scenarios ulterior reasons. 

The degree of knowledge in this world seems to vary from 1 concept or area, to the next, from 1 person to the next, and seems to have varied for humanity from 1 time period to the next. In the modern day, we seem to have vastly more knowledge than in early human history. But we have always seemed to have more confirmable knowledge of physical factors, than concepts or idealisms, such as the purpose of our existence. Development of humanity throughout history, allowing progressive increase of knowledge, could hypothetically be a method of changing and varying scenarios, in which free will can be used.

The lack of knowledge of factors in this world, seems it would be appropriate to cause a lack of obviousness, certainty, and calculable choices, if we are in a scenario of free will. A lack of complete knowledge of the purpose or intent of this world, could be an appropriate aspect to allow more genuinely free choices, without ulterior motives. It seems possible that a lack of knowledge can cause; Unknown Freedom.

Free Will Requirements

What components and concepts would be required for a scenario of free will?

Based on the function of reality, as we know it, would the history and current state of the world fit reasonable expectations for such a scenario? Since free will insinuates intentional cause of the scenario where it exists, I’ll consider the 1 intending to cause the scenario, is God. I’ll make this assumption, based on a conceptual best estimate, that God’s main intention is to cause free will to exist. I explained more detail on this assumption, in my last post, where I attempted to distinguish the main functions of God; Distinguishment of Divinity.

For this intention, it seems God would have to create 3 basic components. 

1) A unit which has free will 

2) A platform for everything to exist within

3) Factors (besides the free will unit)

Using these 3 components, it seems there should be incorporated, the concepts of complexity and uncertainty. Complexity seems required so that there are enough relevant choices for free will, and uncertainty, so that choices are not certain and obvious (hence free).

1. The unit with free will would require some functions, to be capable of the concept of free will. It seems the free will unit would have to be able to perceive its environment and factors within the platform, in order for it to be capable of making choices of any relevance. For the unit to be aware of its decision having an impact on factors, it would need to have information regarding the causes and effects of the factors, and of its own actions. For the information to be updated for changing conditions and new choices, the unit would have to be capable of saving new info which it perceives about other factors. The free will unit would also need to be able to access any info which is saved, that is relevant to the factors involved in any given choice. Besides these capabilities, in order for the unit to have its own freedom of choice, it would have to be created in a way that its decisions were not caused intentionally, by God. 

2. The platform would likely need to be big and extensive enough that the free will unit cannot easily find the boundaries. If the platform was too small or simple, there would be minimal choices to be made, and choices might be so simple that they would be obvious. If choices begin as very obvious, then it makes free will obsolete. If the overall scenario for free will, is intended to be an extensive scenario, it seems there would be a variety of situations and environments for the free will units to exist within. To allow potential learning and development of the units (as a more significant scenario fro free will), the units may have the opportunity to develop increasing information, and methods of perceiving info, regarding the platform and factors. Assuming this concept, the platform would need to be extensive and complex enough that, after the units’ development of perceiving info, that they could still not easily find boundaries of the platform, or it may become obvious that they are contained within a limited platform, and lose motivation or potential to expand. 

3. Factors would need to be numerous and complex enough, for similar reasons. Factors should be complex so the free will units could not easily perceive all info to a degree of accuracy that decisions were all obvious. If the free will units had enough info to be certain of all factors, certainty would outrule any potential choices to be made. A complex enough environment also allows for a more significant overall concept of free will, since circumstances regarding decisions would not become redundant quickly.

The world as we know it, seems it may include these components.

1) A unit perceiving, saving and accessing info about factors within a platform, would be equivalent to humans using senses to perceive, and memory to save and access info. A complex creation, to avoid intentional decisions by God, could be evolution and the complexity of the human brain. 

2) A platform extensive enough that the units do not easily reach the boundaries, or lose potential/motivation to develop, could be this universe. 

3) Factors which are complex enough to allow relevance of choice, without scenarios which are highly obvious or certain, could be all the elements and laws of physics within this universe. 

The history and present tense of this world and universe, seem to be fairly coherent with the conceptuality of; Free Will Requirements. 

Distinguishment of Divinity

What elements distinguish God?

This is my opinionated description of the outlines of Gods overall functions. To sum it up into 1 word, I might say purpose. God is the purpose that we exist, and purpose or continued existence. Without a purpose for us to exist, it seems likely we would not. 

Scientifically, there are a lot of circumstances required to cause humans to exist. I say humans, because from current knowledge, it seems like humans are the most significantly unique and complex things in the universe. Mainly because of our brains and the resulting concept of consciousness. If you’re now questioning (as is common) what consciousness actually is, in order for me to assume it is so significant, in my opinion, a precisely defined explanation is not necessary, to know that the general idea of conscious awareness which we experience, is significant. But I have a defined explanation of its function anyway, in a post from almost 2 yrs ago; Conscious Comprehension. 

The circumstances involved to allow humans to exist with consciousness, seem to be too precise to be a fluke. I described more of my reasoning for this, in a related post from 3+ yrs ago; Law of Physics or God. A common scientific theory to explain why our universe happened to be chanced with such applicable laws of physics, is the Multiverse Theory. But perhaps this only extends the requirement for particular circumstances, to requiring the circumstances for infinite universes to even exist. Besides the scientific reasons that consciousness is significant, from the perspective of a God believer, its significant as the concept which allows free will. So 1 element of God, is purposefully causing the circumstances required for a species to exist in the 1st place, with free will. 

Once humans began on Earth, the next element of God could be aid. It's usually believed by any theist, that God aids humans through guidance, individually, and as a whole, as well as aids us physically or practically, in some situations. By my beliefs, the method that God guides individuals, varies from person to person, depending on their typical method of thinking or reacting (as I further described in a post from 6 days ago; Method of Guidance). Guiding humanity as a whole, would be more along the lines of major events, which God causes, such as Jesus, and everything in the Bible. Practical aid would be circumstances occurring which help someone to accomplish a task, or recieve something, or improve healthwise. By my belief, circumstances of God providing aid are much more common (and perhaps even exclusive) with the will of someone, for God to cause it. Distinguishing this as an overall element of God, would be because, without a God, none of those circumstances would have happened. Recognizing specific circumstances caused by God, can be very difficult, and maybe unfalsifiable (assuming God does not break the laws of physics), but perhaps general tendencies of occurrences can be noticed, which might be the concept of faith.

It seems Gods overall functions can basically be summarized into 2 elements of purpose; allowance of free will, and aid. Considering the incredible significance of human consciousness, causing all the required circumstances of the universe, to result in free will, would be Gods 1st step. Aiding people throughout history, with guidance and practicality, would be the 2nd continued concept involved, in the; Distinguishment of Divinity. 

Adam and Eve Adamant Evolution

Is it plausible to interpret the story of Adam and Eve in conjunction with evolution?

In the Bible, Adam and Eve were the first humans, and their disobedience of choosing to eat from The Tree of Knowledge caused them to gain knowledge. Could all this make sense through the scientific theory of evolution? In my last post; Tree of Knowledge, I hypothesized that the choice of Adam and Eve eating from the tree too early, may have caused them to gain conscious awareness too quickly, before being mentally competent enough to handle the power. By my understanding of the significance of the power of conscious comprehension of cause and effect, this should be plausible, scientifically. What about the rest of the story of Adam and Eve?

According to scientific evolution, humans developed from apes, gradually over many generations. Along this line of gradual development, there could still be 1 original human, born from an ape. The difference of this 1st “human” would be very slight, and basically depend on which definition is used for the label we use, of “human”. Intelligence may be a defining factor for humans, as by my understanding, intelligence seems to be 1 of the most significant differences between apes and humans, which has caused most other of our differences. If scientifically, the 1st “humans” had a slight advantageous development of intelligence, leading from subconscious animals, to conscious humans, this seems it lign up with the general idea of the story of The Tree of Knowledge.

If Adam and Eve were the 1st 2 humans evolved from apes, it could make sense, that they were the 1st ones capable of understanding God's commandment, to some degree, and making the choice of obeying God or not, in whether or not to eat from the tree. Scientifically, it seems this would be some slight step from subconsciousness (as typical animals have), to consciousness. They would not yet quite have conscious awareness before eating from the tree, but some capability to make a choice (as it seems highly intelligent animals also have now, to some degree). 

Perhaps this stage between subconscious and consciousness, involves a higher ability than normal, for using language. This could also explain why Adam had the ability to name all of the animals. Scientifically, language seems like a significant element in the development of intelligence and consciousness, as I further described in a post from 10 months ago; Intelligence Evolution by Language. Many intelligent animals can understand a lot of words, but can almost never put together a sentence, which involves combining factors through comprehension of the interaction of factors, which seems likely is 1 of the main components for the function of consciousness (more detail on my hypothesis, in a post from 11 months ago; Conscious Comprehension). 

Granted, some of the details in the story don't seem to line up, but that may depend on how literal the story is interpreted. Scientifically, Adam did not literally come from dust, and Eve did not literally come from Adam's rib, but the Bible has a lot of metaphors throughout, and degree of literal meaning is often difficult to interpret. It is possible (to an extra vague degree of guessing) that dust or dirt was involved in the beginning spark of life, scientifically, around 4 billion yrs ago, contributing to the meaning of Adam coming from dust. It also seems possible that Eve came from Adam, in a genetic relation of some sort (which could account for her also having more developed intelligence genetics), supporting the meaning of her coming from Adam's rib. Another possibility is that the fruit from the tree of knowledge, contained certain nutrients which caused Adam and Eve to develop intelligence slightly further, for conscious awareness. Regardless, it seems there are a lot of possibilities, regarding interpretation. 

Once Adam and Eve gained knowledge from the fruit of the tree, they became aware that they were naked, which would be an aspect of self conscious awareness, also supporting scientific psychology. Another aspect of the story, is that Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain and Abel, and after Cain killed Abel and was banished to a new location, he had a wife. 1 common theory explaining where his wife came from, was that it was his sister. Another possibility, potentially aligning with evolution, is that Cain’s wife may have been another ape of the species that Adam and Eve came from, just with genetics slightly not as developed. If Cain (as well any other siblings he may have had) bred with others of the ape species, they could likely still pass on their genetics of increased intelligence and awareness, to their offspring.

Depending on how the concepts of the story of Adam and Eve are interpreted, it seems possible that Adam and Eve could have been the 1st individuals to evolve from apes. The gain of an increase of language ability is mentioned in the story, and seems coherent with a step of development of intelligence. Gain in intelligence beyond this step, seems to suit the potential scientific development of consciousness, as a potential concept of; Adam and Eve’s Adamant Evolution.

Tree of Knowledge

What effects in this world were caused by humans eating from the tree of knowledge?

If you believe the Bible, you would likely agree that the tree of knowledge was a significant part of the beginning of humanity. It's a common understanding that God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree, but they did anyway, gaining some type of knowledge. Assuming the knowledge they gained was awareness and virtually consciousness, if they had not eaten from the tree, does that mean humanity never would have gained consciousness? And why would there even be a tree with the resulting effects of disobedience being gained consciousness? If the concept was a test of choice for Adam and Eve, God could have had much simpler resulting effects, but still consequences.

It seems likely that consciousness and free will are a profound part of this world, which is not fundamentally a bad thing, and potentially a component of the purpose of life, so it seems plausible that we were meant to eat from the tree, at some point. There are theories that we were meant to eat from the tree, but not at that time. This seems plausible that humanity was not yet ready to gain awareness, and that if Adam and Eve had obeyed God, we still would have gained consciousness at a later time. Perhaps Adam and Eve eating too early, was like a child disobeying their parents, and the results were the child moving out to live on their own, having too much power and responsibility, before being competent, and mentally capable of functioning appropriately and independently. 

If this was the case, humanity would likely grow and develop as a species with the power of knowledge and comprehension, before having the adequate mentality to use it. Humans would go about the Earth recklessly, causing many effects of difficulty and problems for people and the environment. This sounds notably familiar and similar to the history of humanity. 

With conscious awareness, comes the ability to interact with others using complex intentions. The capability to manipulate others or situations, with foresight and planning, comes from comprehension of cause and effect, and consciousness of indirect and long term effects. Awareness of mind, allows potential to be more caring and helpful, but also the potential to intentionally hurt others more. This is 1 element of the power of awareness, which can be abused, if in the wrong hands.

Also, with understanding of knowledge, comes more physical power, through use of tools and development of technology. More physical power increases severity of resulting effects of actions, whether the effects are intentional, or a side-effect. This increase of severity, increases risk of damage being done by any individual, towards others or towards the natural environment. 

With the amount of negative effects and harm often caused in this world, it seems like we dont have sufficient capability to use the power of consciousness, as I further hypothesized in a post from 10 months ago; Update Pending: Subconsciousness. If humanities consciousness had begun in a more timely manner, with more appropriate development of controlled understanding, it seems likely we would have a much more effective grasp over this power. Without proper training and adaptation that God could have provided, humans seem to have overstepped our capabilities, as a result of choosing to eat from The; Tree of Knowledge. 

Method of Guidance

What methods might God use to guide or direct someone?

It seems plausible that God can alter or influence someone's thoughts and actions, if the person is willing for God to guide them, as I further questioned in my last post; Willing Gods Will. But in what particular way, might God cause or guide his will through someone? And how would they recognize his guidance? 

If God does direct people’s thoughts or actions, it seems this would play out in a variety of methods of function, considering the mass variety of circumstances that might be involved, and the variety of ways that people think. If God causes his will using the laws of physics, in a practical method of cause and effect (as I hypothesized in a post from 3+ yrs ago; Methods of Miraculous Manipulation), then in order for him to alter someone’s thoughts or actions, it seems likely he would utilize scientifically coherent methods of psychology. This would usually include any individuals typical method of thinking or taking action. Altering someone's psychology to make a certain decision would likely involve altering some circumstances at some point in the person's life, to cause the psychological effect of the relevant decision being the outcome. I hypothesized more on this concept, and potential explanations for how this method could function as a whole interconnected process throughout this world, without conflict of necessary altered circumstances reducing the free will of others, in a post from about 2.3 yrs ago; Influence Implementation. 

Assuming God does guide anyones thoughts through a scientific psychological method, it seems a common and practical way for God to do this, would be in concurrence with each individual’s typical method of thinking. Every person thinks and reacts in a unique way, to some degree. With the huge quantity of billions of neurons, and an average of 1000 synapses per neuron in a human brain, this creates a massive potential for combinations for each thought, and overall general tendency of method of thought for any given person. Method of accessing all these neurons would not only vary from person to person, but from time to time, for each person. 

Making the psychological method even much more complex, each person would have their own tendencies for using the 3 components of a thought process; instinct, subconscious, and consciousness, as I further described in a post from 2+ months ago; Mind Driver. Each person would also have tendencies for a type of intelligence and memory access, as I further mentioned in a post from 2.4 weeks ago; General vs Memory Intelligence. Throughout all these variances of methods of thought processes, God would cause alterations (when someone is willing) to the necessary components, in order to guide someone's thoughts or actions. 

If someone typically makes decisions quickly without deep consideration, using a higher degree of subconscious thought, then perhaps God would influence that person's subconscious memory. Since subconscious memory access is more based on positive or negative reinforcement linked with memory of factors, which the person is not really aware of, God might cause that person to have subconsciously received a different degree of reinforcement, when they interacted with the relevant factors in the past. If someone typically thinks more deeply, using reasoning, and conscious comprehension of cause and effect for a decision, then for God to influence their thoughts, he might cause more specific connections between neural combinations, which represent details in memories and understanding of the function of concepts involved in the scenario. If someone often reacts more based on instinct or emotions, God might alter which of that person's emotions have a stronger influence at that point in time, in order to influence them to react in a certain way. 

It seems likely that for God to influence someone's decisions or reactions, at their request, he would often simply use a method of cooperation with that person's type of thinking process. Whether its instinct, emotion, subconscious, or conscious thought, and whether its usually a function of adaptive or memory intelligence, perhaps someone understanding their own tendency of method of thinking, is a decent option for someone to recognize God’s; Method of Guidance.

Willing Gods Will

Can someone intentionally allow God's will to occur?

If you believe in God, then it seems rational that you would also believe that he has some sort of Will or intent or desire for this world, otherwise, he wouldn't have caused this world to exist. It seems probable his will is, at minimum, for humans to exist, since our awareness, comprehension, and experience of this world seems uniquely significant. That unique aspect, which humans seem to have, is consciousness, and it seems to follow that consciousness allows our free will (as I described in more detail, in a post from 3 yrs ago; Control to Free, Allowance Degree). Further hypothesis of God's desire for our lives, seems reasonable to lead to us choosing to follow his general guideline principle of; treat others as you would want to be treated. If someone does choose to try to follow this path, it seems to still leave them with a window of personal preference, as long as it does not contradict that guideline, as I further questioned in my last post; Relevance of Will. It seems God perhaps wants us to have our own preferences, but if the direction of someone’s preferences is to allow God to cause his will, is it plausible to let God direct their own will, through thoughts and decisions?

If God typically allows our own choices by our free will, it seems he wouldn't force any thoughts or decisions on someone. But it seems plausible that there could be an exception, of God causing someone to think a certain way, if it was their own choice, to allow that alteration to their thoughts or decisions. If you believe that God can alter circumstances in general, for his own will, then he should be able to alter our thoughts as well. If someone genuinely wants God to cause them to think and make decisions for his will, then it seems likely God would do that. To what degree, and under what circumstances would God alter someone's thoughts and actions, is a further question.

If part of God's will, really is for us to have our own free will, then perhaps God would not alter someone’s thoughts completely in all scenarios, even if we are willing for him to do so. It’s almost like willing God’s will, would be cancelled out in some situations, if God’s will is for us to have our own will. As I described in my last post, it seems like these scenarios, where God wants us to make our own choice, without his influence, would be within the conceptual window of; our choices not causing harm to someone else, and not lacking in aid to someone else. If someone has a choice to make, and to their knowledge, the decision will not affect anyone else negatively, maybe it is God's will for us to choose our own preference. Someone could still ask for God to cause them to decide, since its possible there would be relevant effects which they are unaware of, yet God is, but if it’s a situation where God can adapt to the effects, maybe he would then cause the person to choose their own preference. 

If there is a decision at hand which does involve causing relevant effects towards others (or even towards the person themselves), and the person is willing for God's will, then the method for which God causes his will through their decision, seems it would differ, depending on the person, and their way of making a decision. Whichever method it is, it seems plausible God could completely control their actions and decisions. If the person's own will is not genuinely entirely for God to cause his will, and they have their own desires, perhaps it comes down to whichever of the person's preferences is greater. If their preference is higher for God’s will than their own personal preference, it seems likely God would cause his will, but if their own preference is actually higher than their willingness for God's will, that might make the difference, in that God would then not cause his will through their thoughts or actions. 

It seems likely that the extent of God altering someone’s thoughts, ends with the persons lack of will for God's will. Every new situation that comes up in someone’s life, offers new circumstances with a new question of comparison for someone's will of their own preferences or God’s. This might be another aspect of the extent of God causing his will through someone. Even if, in 1 moment, someone is willing for God to control all their thoughts and actions for the rest of their life, that willingness might change, once new circumstances arise, creating a reset of God’s control.

It seems plausible for someone to allow God to alter their thoughts, actions, and circumstances through many situations, but on some occasions, when there is no known significant effects towards others, God might want us to choose for ourselves. In situations which do have significant effects, it seems Gods influence may only last so long, until new circumstances arise, where the persons will has changed, requiring a reset of their will. Whatever the scenario, perhaps genuineness of wanting God to cause his way more than our own, is important when; Willing Gods Will. 

Relevance of Will

Is anyone’s will relevant or important, relative to God’s will?

By “will”, I basically mean preference of intent to do or accomplish something. If you believe in God, and that he is all knowing, it seems rational to assume God knows better than you do for any situation. From this perspective, does it make my own will obsolete, compared to God’s? I don't mean obsolete in ability to actually choose to do something of my own will, as I believe we do have that ability, as I further explained in a post from 3 yrs ago; Control to Free, Allowance Degree. Rather, I mean obsolete, when it comes to my own consideration of the significance of my own preference, for anything in life. 

Of course everyone has their preferences, but if I believe God knows better than me, and that his will is more important, then rationally, should my preference always simply be for God's preference? Whether or not I can figure out, cause, or allow God’s will, would be a relevant component, since if I can't, then I have no way to implement God’s preference, even if it was my only preference. Perhaps that concept is another topic, but for simplicity's sake of this topic, I’ll assume that I can intentionally allow Gods will. What Gods will actually is, might be another relevant component to this overall question, and that may be yet another topic in itself. So for this topic, I’ll try to consider basic, generalized potentials of what God's will might be.

If God's will is for everyone to have their own free will, and liberty in life, then it could be plausible that my own will is important. But then again, in the circumstances where my choice causes someone else's freedom to be inhibited, then it seems that would be counteractive to God's will. So in this scenario, perhaps it would make sense that I can have my own preferences, but only up to the point where it restricts someone elses free will. This scenario seems like it would, by default, exclude any harm to others, in my preferences, as causing harm or difficulty for someone else, is virtually reducing their free will. This seems to mostly align with the commonly accepted general guidelines from God, being; treat others, as u would want to be treated. 1 aspect missing from that guideline, which this idealism of will does not necessarily include, would be actually intentionally aiding others. 

Based on this general guideline, it seems likely that, besides my preferences lacking in harm towards others, they should also include aiding others. If God's will is for our own preferences to follow this guideline, then perhaps my own preferences are relevant, as long as they dont cause another harm, or ignore potential aid for someone else. If God’s will is for us to have our own free will, besides these 2 exclusions, then perhaps there is a window of allowance of personal preferences. 

This free will window (for considering relevance of will, not actual ability) seems it could include anything within life of which, to my awareness, does not harm someone, or restrict potential aid for someone. If God is as adaptable throughout life as I believe he is (further hypothesizing, in another post from 3 yrs ago; Intercedal implementation), then perhaps this free will window is fairly open for a lot of personal preferences. If God can adapt to using our own choices, to still cause his will, regarding the effects of our choices, then it seems that in potential collaboration with his, we may still have; Relevance of Will.