To answer this proposed question, we must assume facts not in evidence: that Eve and the apple are real and not illusory. As Locke would have it:
as God has set some things in broad day-light, as he has given us some certain knowledge though limited to a few things in comparison, probably as a taste of what intellectual creatures are capable of, to excite in us a desire and endeavour after a better state (Cummins 250).
Eve saw reality in the extended apple. Her reality was that she was either hungry or simply desirous of something sweet and tasty, namely, an apple. It would have made little difference to her if the apple had been yellow or green, although red is surely a more pleasing color, indicating full ripeness. "The mind has two facultiesà.first knowledgeàsecondly, judgment" (Cummins 250). Eve's knowledge was that apples taste good. Eve's judgment was that no matter who extended the apple to her, it was "safe" to eat. After all, had she and Adam not tasted all the fruits of Eden? Locke explains that our knowledge (that is, human knowledge) is narrow and limited, but that humans rely on some form of probability: "the conformity of anything without own knowledge, observation and experienceàsecondly, the testimony of others, vouching their observation and experience" (Cummins 251). Our experience is that apples are healthy and tasty. In this allegory, of course, the all-knowing "serpent" also vouches for the validity and good taste of the apple. There is no thought of "forbidden fruit" here. In fact, the apple often plays a role in fairy tales: i.e., the poisoned apple given to Snow White. Reality is based on experience. There was no overt sign "Don't eat the apple!" which would have undoubtedly stopped Eve. Locke here does not discuss choice. Leibnitz does. "To choose is to select one alternative and reject the others" (Matson 386). Eve's reality of wanting the apple made her choice clear. As Locke assumes, it wa...