Comprehension Inception

• If conscious thought is simply memory access, what elements of that concept allow comprehension and intelligence?
• If “intelligence” is regarded as [effective and accurate conclusions drawn from relative variables], then likely, the more accurately and effectively memories of factors are processed, derived, combined, and applied to new varying circumstances, via comprehension, the higher the intelligence level. 
• 
  
• Taking subconscious reaction compared to conscious decisions, as a sample for variances of accuracy of memory access in relation to respective intelligence levels, it seems evident that the more accurate the memory processing, the higher the intelligence. Regarding subconscious reaction as a low-accuracy method of general and basic memory, triggering reactions, there is little intelligence involved in comparison. This method may be faster, but much less effective with high variances in circumstances requiring analysis for accurate prediction. 
• 
  
• The conscious decision process allows access to a profoundly higher quantity of memories with much easier triggering of access to subsequent memories. In any circumstance requiring reaction, conscious decision making is able to take in the variables of the current circumstance, and reference vast amounts of memory data which is relative to those individual variables. Rather than taking the overall circumstances and choosing the most pressing memory based on memory data, with linked severity of positive or negative feedback (as subconscious would have), conscious thought can relate all specific detailed factors involved in the overall circumstance, and access the most accurate memory relative to each factor/variable. With the circumstances dissected, and each specific detail which is involved, referenced to various matching memory data of that detail, a much more accurate and reliable prediction can be made, and therein preferable outcome caused.
• 
  
• As far as specific details of factors within circumstances go, in order to effectively relate the most relevant aspect of memory data, comprehension of cause and effect of varying factors can make the relating of memory data much more effective. But what is comprehension, if all thought is just memory access? Comprehension would be memory of a sub-construct of objects/factors and relative cause and effect, of those factors (and or motion thereof). With a memory of an appropriate sub-construct of factors (and cause/effect of such factors), this sub-construct (comprehension) can be applied to various circumstances containing matching factors within the virtual construct. 
• 
  
• In order to comprehend various general concepts, the mind must be able to remember specific factors (objects/groups of objects/motion thereof) and their relative cause and effect. The more concepts stored in memory (and the more effectively a mind can access those concepts), the more efficient the variances of circumstances can be related, and therein accurately predicted. Vast quantities of factors, and concepts of factors, can be stored in the memory, creating a more effective toolbox for finding the most relative selection of tools to build what is preferred.

Theory of Thought

• Can all aspects of conscious thought be viable using a method of memory access?
• Conscious thought is perhaps often regarded as imagined words being processed and organised within the mind, in a manner relative to and representative of stimulation to the brain. 
• 
  
• To break this down, the first variable in my definition, is imagined words. Are imagined words anything more than a memory of hearing or seeing that word, combined with a memory of the concept of which that word represents?
• Most words come to mind as “second nature”, without consciously analysing which word is applicable for an intended meaning. The words themselves are memory, since they are only gained through life learning, but since they don’t require (Usually) conscious analysis, I would consider the type of mind process to be subconscious. This would be relative to words used commonly by the individual. Some words take more consideration and analysis of intended meaning, related to a vocabularic term, and some can even be forcefully adapted and constructed, regardless of exact common technicality (such as “vocabularic”:). This would be mostly conscious thought implemented in the case of consideration of vocabulary. But whether common or rare term, and whether conscious or subconscious mind method, both seem to use the process of memory.
• 
  
• So a word itself, is memory access, but what about the intended meaning, and concept of which the word is referring to? 
• When an individual consciously derives concepts (for which words are suited to), which are relevant and applicable to a stimuli, they are simply accessing memory data of the concept, which is relative to whatever stimulated that concept to be considered. Every concept of which an individual can think of (for which a vocabularic term is labelled to), is theoretically a memory of an object, substance, action, or combination of each, which was saved to the memory bank via senses. This is relevant because if all words can be regarded as only concepts of objects, then all thoughts of words, could be only a memory, recorded only by method of the senses, and saved as data. 
• 
  
• To further simplify all concepts and ideas (and virtually everything in the universe) with a labelled term; they can be considered objects, or movement of objects. Actions can be considered a concept of the movement of an object(s). Liquid or substances can be considered many small objects (particles) combined. Air can be considered the objects of the elements which make up air. Emotion can be considered movement of a substance or electrical current (considered movement of electrons (objects)) within the brain. Memory itself can be considered (as the theory of this entire writing) objects, being the method of data storage, which the brain uses. A more complex concept can be considered a sub-construct of a larger quantity and or variety of objects, and motion of objects. Some sub-constructs might be vague and generalised in which specific objects or motion they refer to, but the concept is still of, only objects.  
• 
  
• The more advanced the brain becomes, theoretically, the more combinations of sub-constructs can be stored in memory, and the more accurately it can access varying sub-constructs and combinations. With more accurate access of memory, applicable to more specific circumstances (of the vast amount of potential varying circumstances within typical lifestyle), comes more preferential results. As the brains process of development, the more effective and useful a combination proves to be, the more positive feedback is issued from the brain, making that memory more easily triggered. The more the memory which is used, also, the more easily it is triggered.
• 
  
• Regarding my previous definition of conscious thought (consisting of the prospect that all thoughts of words can be broken down to plausibly be only memory access), we’re left with the method in which the mind processes and organises words, in a manner relative to and representative of stimulation. The superficial term for the method of which the mind processes and organises words, would be sentences. Considering words as labels for concepts of sub-constructs of objects, sentences would be combinations of words. Sentences are to words, as complex concepts are to sub-constructs of objects/ motion of objects. So the method which the conscious mind processes words, is by accessing memory of complex combinations of sub-constructs of concepts. When an individual thinks a sentence, it is constructed piece by piece, word by word, each of which, is representing a sub-construct of objects which have been recorded to the memory. 
• 
  
• As far as I can determine, (just like every word in this sentence, which I thought of) all aspects of conscious thought are plausible via memory access.

Constructs of Consciousness

• Are the constructs of consciousness simply a more accurate method of memory mechanics? 
• Subconscious reactions of animals seem like a simple enough process of information storage in the mind. The senses of the animal constantly record circumstances while the animal is awake, then in any significant scenario which the animal experiences, there are additional brain signals triggered as positive or negative feedback, which are then stored with the sensory memory information. In a recurrence of similar variables, the sensory information of similar circumstances are sent to the brain, then with information resembling that of information already stored in the brain, the positive or negative feedback which was connected to that information saved from a past circumstance, is brought back to the brain. That feedback which is brought to the brain as a result of the connection to the past circumstance, causes the animal to react to the variables appropriately in the majority of situations, by making the animal either avoid or pursue the variables and scenario. 
• 
  
• Human consciousness seems to be a more complex, effective, and accurate upgrade to subconscious. As a similar example to the explanation of subconsciousness, when a person comes across variables which resemble past circumstances recorded by the senses, any negative or positive feedback likely comes to mind, which was also recorded and connected to the information saved. The difference is, this time the brain accesses more specific and resembling information, which was less significantly triggered by feedback. This is done by the brain cycling through more past occurrences with resembling variables. With the accuracy to access saved information of more variables which were present in more scenarios, the brain can take the positive or negative feedback connected to those more accurate variables of circumstances. By recalling positive or negative feedback connected to more specific variables within a scenario, the mind can distinguish more accurately whether the overall scenario of all variables included, is positive or negative, and react correspondingly. 
• 
  
• The gradual adaptation of the conscious mind from subconscious, would likely occur simply by the brain triggering information (and connected feedback) on more frequent occasions. The more times feedback (linked with sensory information) is sent to the brain, the more accurate that feedback will be based on new circumstances and relative sensory information.
• 
  
• This is a fairly simple version of consciousness and a generalised description. With more complex thoughts of a conscious mind, comes more cycles through the memory bank of information and relative connected feedback. Once many specific factors are distinguished to be positive or negative within many scenarios of circumstances, those accurate factors (with degree of positivity/negativity linked) are stored as information in the form of a memory itself, and used for more accurate evaluation of future circumstances which involve those stored factors. 
• 
  
• Every time a memory of a factor is used in a new circumstance, the validity of the accuracy of information saved, regarding that variable, is reinforced. Information saved in the mind about a specific variable being positive in a scenario, will be reinforced to be positive if the variable is used in similar circumstances and the same positive result occurs. The information will then be saved more distinctly, and be more probable to be utilised the next time the factor occurs. A more complex and intelligent mind is built over time of numerous factors being saved as information by the senses, with greater accuracy to distinguish an overall positive or negative result based on application of the factors and their queued positivity or negativity. 
• 
  
• Theoretically, the significant differential between subconscious and conscious awareness is memory circulation. Memory circulation allows the mind to access virtually and nearly any information saved. It might begin by the senses sending information to the brain. The method of information recall occurs based on the new sensory information. With sensitive enough triggering of accessing memory information, eventually the mind triggers the information based on a memory itself (potentially having a low severity of feedback). The mind brings back memories resembling the new information, then the brain uses that information (of memory) to again relate more saved information based on that recalled memory data (rather than new sensory data). Once memory data is accessed based on memory information, which is accessed based on other memory information, this can be repeated virtually infinitely, to continue accessing any information stored in the brain, as memory circulation.
• 
  
• The brain can keep repeating this process of relating more accurate information of specific factors involved in the memory information, which is being recalled. If enough information of factors of memories is stored, the mind can continuously repeat this cycle of recalling information based on resembling factors, by using numerous connections of resemblances. Once the process of factor distinguishment -by method of recurring memory circulation- is multiplied significantly, access to a multitude of potential information is allowed, which can be used in any new circumstances involving any of those factors. 
• 
  
• I suspect the feeling of “conscious awareness” is a result of a temporarily continuous memory circulation, involving information which is relevant to the current circumstances of which the individual is “consciously aware”. Current circumstances are sending new information to the mind via senses, and said new information, resembles information stored in the brain which is also being circulated through, by conscious memory circulation of past information saved. 
• 
  
• “Self awareness” would be a more specific type of conscious awareness. Self awareness could likely be relative to the ability to hold a memory circulation involving enough concepts (and memory data of the details within the concepts), which are involved in, and relevant to, the fact that the individual itself exists.
• 
  
• In summary; once memory information data and relative feedback, are accessed by the brain commonly and sensitively enough, access can be triggered to occur by the memory information which is being accessed, itself. Once a circulation of information data access (based on data access), is created, that circulation can be processed repeatedly, to access any data in the mind, using resembling information connections in the saved data.

Memory Mechanics of the Mind

• How does the mind work? Is it entirely, simply a process of accessing memories?
• By my understanding, there’s 3 categories of mind processes: instinctive action, subconscious reaction, and conscious decision. Perhaps the best way to understand the method and mechanics of the mind, is to distinguish the function of each of these, relative to memory, starting with the more simple version. 
• 
  
• A very basic form of a mind could be an insect's actions based mostly on instinct. An insect which lives in a very isolated and simple environment, would have very few functions of action. It would perhaps eat and reproduce. It would do these things instinctively, as their nervous system is preprogrammed with these functions from birth. Since instinctive actions are existent from birth, they are not gained memory. So it seems the 1st and simplest category of mind mechanics does not utilise memory access.
• 
  
• The 2nd category, being subconscious reaction, would be the method of mind function for most -if not all- animals on this planet. All animals would also have the basic instinct, preprogrammed actions, but subconscious reaction is used for varying circumstances of animals lives, to adapt to their surroundings and have more effective and accurate reactions to occurrences in their lives. This would be based on memory of the animals’ varying life circumstances. Their mind records memories, using whatever their unique use of senses may be. The memories are of varying life circumstances, which cause either positive or negative feedback (as more advanced brains likely developed for effectivity), relative to the severity of the feedback. The more severe of negative or positive feedback of a circumstance, the more profound and distinctly the memory is stored, to cause the animal to either avoid or pursue the circumstance in the future. 
• 
  
• As the subconscious mind functions seem to be based entirely on memory access, perhaps the 3rd and most complicated category of mind mechanic is only a more advanced and in depth process. Consciousness and decision making seem to be commonly regarded as mysterious and unexplainable, but is it really much more than accessing memories? 
• 
  
• This 3rd category is unique to the unparalleled (as far as we know) and profoundly dominant and overruling species on this planet, humans. Our dominance is likely a very good example of the efficiency and effectivity of this method of mind mechanic. Humans do use instinctive action and subconscious reaction throughout our lives, but those times of advanced mental processing are what set us apart. Rather than the mind reacting strictly based on memory of past negative or positive feedback of general circumstances, conscious decision making seems to allow us to actively sort through memories and extract notable specific details of cause of positive or negative outcome. 
• 
  
• If subconscious reaction was used in any given scenario, the mind would simply refer to (theoretically) the most profound memory in resemblance to the current scenario, with the most severe feedback. It would then assume that memory is most relevant, and cause a reaction based on that 1 memory and the degree of feedback -whether negative or positive. Considering conscious decision making in the same scenario, somebody would likely access a memory of a circumstance resembling the current one, then determine the causes of negative or positive feedback. To determine the cause and relevancy of the feedback, they would access memories of the method of function of the occurrence which caused the feedback. By accessing memories of the method of function of the circumstance, the mind is able to distinguish accurately which aspect of the occurrence caused which specific effects. This accurate memory access allows the mind to distinguish much more specific and detailed causes of positive or negative feedback, rather than the generalised memory of feedback which the subconscious mind method uses.
• 
  
• If throughout the past, the mind developed to access more and more detail of memories, this could be the method by which humans developed “consciousness”. In perhaps most animals lives, accessing detail of memory wouldn’t necessarily be beneficial for survival, as it likely slows down the thought process. Perhaps speed outperforms accuracy for the majority of species of animals typical life circumstances. But maybe the lifestyle of apes caused accuracy to outperform speed of thought, allowing accuracy of detailed memory access to advance. 
• 
  
• At a glance it seems like all advanced mind mechanics (beyond instinct) function by method of memory access. 
• Is it so simple, or might there be more to the complexity of consciousness? 

Evolution of Free Will

The complexity of the circumstances required to implement the freedom of an intentionally uninfluenced 50% probability occurrence, is equivalent to the flip of a coin.

The complexity of the circumstances which God would leave to freedom of occurrence in order to implement free will, would be equivalent to the complexity of our consciousness.

In order to allow freedom of occurrence or randomosity of any scenario, you simply need to allow something to occur without intentionally influencing the outcome. The degree to which you allow circumstances to occur without intentional influence, would be equal to the degree of freedom of occurrence. Scientifically, it may be possible to calculate and intentionally cause the entirety of a set of circumstances and occurrences. Hypothetically, with this capability, in order to allow freedom of occurrence, randomosity, or chance to occur, you would simply need to allow a certain set of circumstances to occur without an intentional influence or cause of outcome.

The method of development of human consciousness (and therein the complexity of circumstances required to allow free will), would be the complexity of our consciousness. The method of development involved with evolution from the initial spark of microorganisms, all the way to human consciousness,,, is pretty complex.

So from Gods perspective, in order to create free will to the complexity of human consciousness, God could allow the circumstances of evolution to occur, without his intentional influence of outcome.

If God allowed the circumstances of evolution to occur without intentional influence of outcome; how could God then alter circumstances within the happening of evolution, which seem necessary and relative to be altered, in order to intentionally cause future circumstances within the lives of humans?

For freedom of occurrence, the only lack of influence on circumstances would need to be: with intention directly relative to the outcome of that which is being left to freedom of occurrence.  Alternate alteration to the same circumstances could be placated, as long as there is that lack of intention for the specific outcome of freedom of occurrence ie. intention to cause human consciousness to function by a specific method.

God likely alters circumstances throughout the modern world which have an influence on the decisions of people who are not willing for God to alter their free will. This is not a reduction of free will, since God is not altering the circumstances with the specific intention of influencing their decisions, but altering the circumstances for another intention, of a potentially unrelated occurrence.

The principle of this concept, would be: as long as the intention is not for that specific outcome, the effects of that alteration of circumstances are still left to freedom of occurrence. This concept can perhaps be relayed to the circumstances of the development of human consciousness, and therein free will. God could potentially alter circumstances which may influence occurrence relative to development of free will, but as long as the intentions are not specifically to influence the specific result of the initial human consciousness, human consciousness would still be left to freedom of occurrence. Ie. Free Will

Influence Implementation

For free will to exist, there needs to be a set of unaltered circumstances. For God to influence current day decisions, does he need to alter the same circumstances, which are necessary to be unaltered for free will to exist?

God influencing conditions from the point of time after initial development of free will and on, without reducing free will seems complicated. If it is understood that; intentionally influencing anyone's decision to any degree, is a reduction of their free will, then it seems difficult to comprehend how God could influence any circumstances at all without reducing someone or another’s free will. Even if someones will is for God to influence their decisions, this may permit the individual to be influenced, but in order to make that influence, God would need to alter circumstances in their past, which are relevant and influential to that decision. This sounds plausible, but considering it is likely that nearly all circumstances which have occurred in someone's life -and therein may play an influential role-, have been relative to someone else's decision, this means God would have to intentionally influence others decisions. If those others also willed God to influence them, there would be no problem, but if their will is not for God to influence them, then it would be a reduction of their free will, if God was to influence them.

So there may be 2 possibilities for God to influence circumstances; 1 would be for God to reduce some people's free will, in order to fulfill his own, in the case where it also aligns with someone else’s will to allow God to alter their will. So, if it is someone’s will for God to influence their decision (or alter exterior conditions, regardless of their decisions), but in order to do so, God must reduce someone’s -or many others- free will, perhaps God does so, relative to the degree of will of the individual who is willing Gods influence. God could potentially implement the alterations regardless of the degree of free will being reduced by others, or perhaps comparatively of the degree of free will being reduced, to will for God to implement alterations of his will.

A 2nd possibility for method of which God alters circumstances in order to influence free will -in the scenario where the individual's will is for God to influence their will-, could be to allow complete free will of all, yet use the decisions which people do make on their own, in the right circumstantial time placement. In the contrary scenario, the mentioned free decisions would occur randomly, and by chance would often not inflict the relevant influence on an alternate individual's decision. But in this theoretical scenario, God would take any free decision (including potentially those non-necessarily-willing) which is effectively influential for the needed circumstance, and cause that free decision to occur in the effectively applicable correct place and time.

It could almost be like cutting and pasting relevant decisions, to position them in an effective placement, like a jigsaw puzzle. In order for God to alter the setting of free decisions, he would need to alter past circumstances, just as he would need to, in order to influence decisions of someone willing for God to do so. The method of implementation would be the same in both situations; of influencing decisions of the willing, and altering the setting and effect of a non-willing decision. The relevance would be that utilizing the non-willing decisions (without reducing free will) would allow a significant increase in potentially useful puzzle pieces.

It seems in any case of God influencing willing decisions or adjusting the setting of circumstances, God needs to alter past circumstances. But for a lot of scenarios of influenced decisions, it can require minimal alteration of past circumstances. Perhaps the ratio of quantity of circumstances required for influence of decisions, to quantity of unaltered circumstances for allowance of free will, is significant and relevant to the answer. As theorised, it takes minimal altered circumstances to influence a lot of willfully influenced decisions, so what quantity of unaltered circumstances are required to allow free will? Perhaps only alteration of circumstances which are relevant to influencing the decision in question, are required to be unaltered. This would mean just as minimal of circumstances as influence a decisions, are required to be unaltered. All other circumstances throughout existence and time, which dont influence any decisions, could be altered.

With my initial question of, influential circumstances needing to be the same as unaltered circumstance for free will to be present, those circumstances would need to be the same -except when your will is for the circumstances to be altered. As long as the circumstances were initially unaltered to present free will, the free will could be implemented to then allow alteration of those same initial circumstances.

Relevant Route of Decision Direction

In the scenario where someone's will is for God to allow something which is also of his will, God would need to allow the circumstances where everyone makes the relative decision which is required for the alteration of conditions to occur. There may be 10 people required to make certain decisions, for a certain circumstance to occur. For each of those 10 people to make that decision, there might have been 100 necessary circumstances to occur. For each of those 100 circumstances, there might be 10 other people required to make certain decisions. Its unlikely that it would stop there, but for eg, this would already be 10 x 100 x 10 = 10 000 people required to make a certain decision, in order for 1 circumstance to occur.

But, for 10 people to make those initial certain relevant decisions, there could be 100 people who could potentially take that role. This means there only needs to be 1/10 people to be willing for God to influence their decisions. Now, considering my next estimate of 100 circumstances necessary to make that influence on that decision, it seems plausible that a lot of decisions would only require 1 circumstance for effective influence*. The next 10 people relevant to their decisions causing that circumstance, would be the same as the 1st set of 10 (only needing 1/10 people to will God to influence their decisions). This brings the equation to 10 x 1 x 10 = 100. But out of those 100, only 1/10 need to be willing for God to influence their decisions

*Why should it be assumed that most decisions would only require 1 or few circumstances? A lot of decisions seem like they’re made regardless of most circumstances. Once a set of principles or rules of effective lifestyle are learned in an individual's life, those rules tend to be the relevant influencing circumstances on nearly all decisions. Therefore, for an individual to be influenced to make a specific decision, few circumstances should need to be altered, as it seems nearly all decisions would be made based on the overruling principles of that individual's decision process. That decision process could be tweaked by minimal occurring circumstances.

Considering all individuals whose decisions would be altered -without the reduction of free will- based on their will for God to alter it, would be of a similar lifestyle, they would likely be of a similar set of principles for basis of decisions. Since all decisions seem to be influenced by the same set of circumstances (ie the development of a set of principles to base decisions on) for each person, and all people relevant to alteration of decisions, seem to have a similar set of principles, if all influences of decisions were to be based on that same set of principles, then the required influence would always already have been applicated.

If God's will is for us to gain the principles of his way of life, and to make decisions based on those principles, and the only alterations God makes to influences on human decisions, are to those of people who are willing for God to alter their decisions based on his will, then no alterations to circumstances of your past (which influence your decisions) would be necessary, as the circumstances would always be the same, since the set of principles would be the same.

If everyones will was for Gods will to occur, then all those decisions would be made. If that is not their will, then there’s a chance they might not make that necessary decision. God would have to either alter their decision and reduce their free will, or predict that occurrence, and readjust the initial variable starting setup until they do make the decision.