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. 

Responsibility

What is responsibility and when does it apply?

A common understanding of what “responsibility” refers to, might be; the perceived obligation to perform a task. 1 technical definition is; “the state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something.” These definitions seem fairly similar and understandable, but under which situations that this should apply, is a more complicated question to answer. 

This concept seems similar to the concept of “deserving”, which I questioned in more detail, in a post from over a yr ago; Served, but not Deserved. It seems similar in the way that it seems that the concept should be applicable, if there has been an agreement between the individual appointed for “responsibility” or Deserving”, and someone else. These situations, involving an obvious agreement, could be considered contextual responsibilities. But in a situation without that agreement, it is more difficult to say, and questionable whether applicability is opinionated and subjective, or if there is any objective responsibilities, by default, for some life situations. 

If there were default responsibilities, it seems likely that these obligations would be fairly well known and agreed upon by almost everyone, otherwise the person being “responsible” would be unaware of it. If someone is unaware of something that they should do, it makes the concept irrational in effectivity. An idealism of an insinuation that someone should do something (based on the situation), which is well known and agreed upon, is basically the concept of ethics or morals. I explained what seems to make up the components of morals, in a post from about 8 months ago; Mutual Morality. This would be different from contextual responsibilities, since applicability of responsibility in this case, involves potential opinion and disagreement, so could be considered “moral responsibilities”. These are more vague in determining, and have a significant degree of variability, in a multitude of circumstances involving many potential differing factors in life. Moral responsibilities could possibly fit into the category of contextual, if someone has stated agreement to a certain aspect of morals, but likely in a lot of situations, agreement won't be so clear. 

For either type of responsibility, awareness should be relevant, to apply rationally fair accountability. Besides awareness of a particular responsibility itself, awareness of all the effects of the individual’s actions should be relevant. If someone was not aware that their actions caused certain effects of a situation, then it seems rational that accountability for responsibility would not be fair. Specific awareness of effects caused by actions, is a complex concept in itself, which makes it difficult to accurately determine potential accountability, as I further explained in a post from 1+ yr ago; Blame by Consciousness. But despite the difficulty of calculation, and assuming an approximate awareness of effects from actions, it seems someone could be responsible, if they were aware of effects, even if they were side-effects. If someone had an alternate main intention by their actions, yet knowingly caused effects regarding something else, it seems they would still be responsible. 

Whether it’s more technical, specifically agreed upon, and contextual, or more potentially subjective, idealistic, and moral, awareness of the effects (even if not the main intention) that your actions cause, seems to be key, for; Responsibility.

Conscious Emotion

How do emotions affect conscious thought?

Combinations of neurochemicals, caused by reinforcement triggers (retriggers for short), seem to have a useful effect on subconscious reactions, as a benefit of instinct for each species, based on various development. I explained more about how neurochemical combinations seem to affect subconscious reactions, in my last post; Emotional Effect. In humans, the neurochemical combos which are typically the strongest and longest lasting, as an influence to cause persisting reactions, are what we call emotions. Besides the effect on subconscious reactions, how do emotions affect conscious thoughts?

Retriggers likely have an effect on conscious thought, and influence how we access 1 memory of a factor to the next, as I further mentioned in a post from last week; Conscious Reinforcement. But emotions would influence conscious thought in a different way, as emotions are much stronger and longer lasting effects of retriggers. Since emotions are based on causing an ongoing influence to pursue or avoid something which is likely highly significant for the benefit of a species, this influence may have the potential to overpower influences of more minor retriggers connected with any given memory of factor. If an emotion has been triggered by someone's previous circumstances, then in the present circumstances, a new factor is perceived, the persisting emotion may have stronger influence than what the regular influence of retrigger connected to that factor in memory, might be. This emotion could then influence conscious thought to access memory of an alternate factor, to what would have normally been accessed. This influence could then set the direction for any decision made through conscious thought.

If emotions cause someone to avoid or pursue something, depending on the emotion, it would tend to influence conscious thought and decisions in that direction, of avoiding or pursuing whatever factors are relevant to that emotion. For eg, the emotion of admiration towards your neighbors accomplishments, is an effect of a positive retrigger causing pursuance of also achieving those accomplishments. If you were feeling this emotion strongly after talking to your neighbor an hour ago, it might influence you to consciously think about steps you can take to achieve the same things, then influence your decision to take 1 of those steps. Without this emotion’s influence, you would have been thinking about something else at this time, and would have decided to do something else. 

An ongoing emotion can also influence individual factors in memory access, during conscious thought. If someone is thinking through a problem for instance, and memory of a certain factor comes to mind which is relevant to the problem, a previously enacted, ongoing emotion might trigger them to think of an alternate factor, which is perhaps connected in memory to that factor, but also connected to the emotion. For eg, if you are trying to think of which method of transportation to take to work tomorrow, but you are still feeling the emotion of anger because you had a heated argument with your roommate 15 mins ago, the anger might trigger you to think of someone who cut you off in traffic yesterday, when the consideration of driving comes to mind. If you had alternatively been feeling happy, the thought of driving might trigger a positive memory of freely driving fast down the highway. 

There is likely a huge variance, and range of degree that any emotion would influence which conscious thought to access next, in any given situation. That, combined with minor influences of retriggers subconsciously connected to any factor within memory, would make the direction of conscious thought very complex. It should be plausible to intentionally manipulate emotions to some degree, based on focus of factors and aspects, as I further hypothesized in a post from over 6 months ago; Motivation Direction. So it should be potentially beneficial, keeping the effects of these influences in mind, as; Conscious Emotion.

Emotional Effect

What effects do emotions cause?

By “emotions”, I’m referring basically to the technical definition; a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others. I talked about more details of my interpretted description of emotions, and potentials to alter them, in a post from almost 1 yr ago; The Notion of Emotion. I also hypothesized how all emotions seem like they could be the effect caused by 2 basic categories of reinforcement triggers (positive, for pursuance, and negative, for avoidance), in my last post; Emotion Reinforcement. Assuming emotions are an after effect of reinforcement triggers (retriggers for short), for the function of subconscious reactions (based on instinct), how do these emotions affect our reactions and decisions?

Emotions seem to tend to have a prolonged effect on our reactions. The various categories of emotions seem to be basically, the most common tendencies for the stronger, longer lasting, concoctions of neurochemical influencers. Throughout any person's life, there could be many other variances of combinations of neurochemicals, and many instances of lower degrees of the retriggers, but we’ve labelled and categorized (even if obscurely) the strongest emotions. Since these emotions have earned a label, they must have proven to be beneficial, from a tendency of circumstances occurring, which would benefit the individual to have the effects of those neurochemicals. Since these emotions are prolonged (in effect) enough to earn a label, the circumstances which cause them, likely require a type of reaction, which would be beneficial over a longer time period.

With typical subconscious reactions, there may be many circumstances which only require a quick, short term reaction. These situations would cause retriggers to a weaker degree of influence, for a shorter time, such as a small prick of pain, as a retrigger for avoidance in the future, caused by a minor scrape from a branch, or the 20th mouthful of grass for a deer, as a weak retrigger for pursuance, for beneficial nutrition. Typical temporary subconscious memory for an animal is short term, such as a deer remembering what it saw 10 mins ago, so perhaps certain retrigger combinations developed to be longer lasting, when necessary to continue causing certain reactions. 

A neurochemical concoction of fear, for eg, would benefit that deer, to cause the effect of making it keep running, and keep being alert, if it saw a wolf 20 mins ago. The retriggers which cause what we might call anticipation, for an elephant in Africa to pursue finding a water source, requires longer lasting neurochemicals, to cause the elephant to keep searching for hours. Love could be considered a very long lasting and very strong form of admiration or enjoyment of being with another individual, as an effect of retriggers to cause them to pursue another, which is beneficial for their own, or species’ as a whole, survival. 

These longer lasting effects of retriggers would be developed as a unique combination for each species benefit, over many generations. As humans have exited a natural environment for which these retriggers were intended for the benefit of, perhaps a lot of emotions are triggered unnecessarily in our modern artificial lifestyles. Beyond technological and societal advancements creating a very different environment, artificial selection of our breeding would have an additional skew of genetic compositions of these neurochemical retriggers causing emotions. Perhaps our ability to consciously analyse the causes and effects, and focus on the enjoyment and sense of meaning of circumstances causing after effects from reinforcement which is positive, is a positive, of; Emotional Effect.  

Emotion Reinforcement

How do Reinforcement triggers affect an individual, as emotion?

If reinforcement triggers (retriggers for short) have an overall basic function of causing an individual to avoid or pursue factors, then perhaps all emotions can be categorized into those 2 groups. A technical definition of “emotion”, is “a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others.” This seems to insinuate the mindfulness caused by retriggers. I further explained retriggers, and their significance to the mind, in a post from 3 days ago; Reinforcement Mechanisms. 

Retriggers which cause pursuance, would be positive reinforcement, which could be categorized as enjoyment. Retriggers which cause avoidance, would be negative reinforcement, which could be categorized as dislike. All other emotions could hypothetically fit into these 2 categories, each emotion with its own variance of neurochemicals to cause the individual to react in a certain way. There seems to be a common approximate acceptance of a list of 8 basic emotions. Half of which could be considered to fit the category of enjoyment: joy, admiration, amazement, anticipation. 

The other half could be considered to fit dislike; fear, sadness, loathing, anger. 

Joy would basically be a feeling of happiness, as a reinforcement to pursue factors present, which cause this positive emotion.
Admiration would include an awareness of the positive aspects which another individual possesses. These positive aspects would cause an element of enjoyment for the person feeling admiration, if the 1 they feel admiration towards, has qualities which will benefit others that they are around (which could be gained through them aiding, teaching, or sharing physical resources). 

Amazement would be similar to admiration, except typically refers to any factors, rather than specifically another individual. Amazement would cause an element of enjoyment and positive reinforcement, as the factors which they are amazed by, include the prospect of gaining those beneficial factors.

Anticipation is an aspect of being constantly mindful of something which the individual considers a beneficial factor. This is mindfulness of factors which caused positive reinforcement. (Anticipation can be considered being mindful of something negative, but further description of my reference, includes “interest”, suggesting positivity. The negative aspect could fit into the category of fear, anyhow)

Fear is an aspect of avoiding something, usually for the individuals well being. This is a decent basic example of negative reinforcement to avoid factors. Perhaps fear is more of a subconscious portrayal of disliking something which may cause harm. 

Sadness is perhaps an emotion which is more prolonged than fear, which often regards an individual's ongoing circumstances, rather than a specific factor to be avoided. Sadness is an element of a negative retrigger, which seems to cause the individual to avoid the circumstances which cause the sadness.

Loathing is basically a strong feeling of dislike, to cause negative reinforcement and avoidance of a factor which is unbeneficial to the individual.

Anger is usually caused by annoyance of a repeating factor which is disliked by the individual. Anger often causes an action which can counteract the disliked factor. It negatively reinforces them to either avoid the factors, or prevent those factors from occurring again. 

It seems plausible that all emotions are the resulting mindfulness of 2 general categories of retriggers, with the basic function of causing avoidance or pursuance for any individual, based on a developed formula of probability of benefit. The benefit of; Emotion Reinforcement.