DAVID:[i] A reporter/philosopher's view on how tough it is[/i]
https://aeon.co/essays/will-we-ever-get-our-heads-round-consciousness?utm_source=Aeon+N...

dhw: We have covered this subject at great length in the threads devoted to dualism versus materialism. Initially, I found myself critiquing individual quotes from this article, but I’ve now read it all and see that in fact it expertly summarizes lots of different views. I really like the conclusion:

"[i]I don’t know. No one does. And I think it is possible that, compared with the hard problem, the rest of science is a sideshow. Until we get a grip on our own minds, our grip on anything else could be suspect. It’s hard, but we shouldn’t stop trying[/i]."

DAVID: [i]And he doesn't mention that NDE's indicate that consciousness can leave a non-functional brain and then come back to it when it is well.[/i]

dhw: A good argument for dualism. As a materialist counter to this, he doesn’t mention that all kinds of factors – e,g, disease, accidents, drugs, alcohol - can change the way in which consciousness functions through their effect on the brain. He’s right, though: we don’t know. We agnostics came to this conclusion long ago about most of the “hard” subjects , but I agree: we shouldn’t stop trying! Hence this website!

Under “[b]Free will[/b]”:

"[i]These observations point to a fundamental paradox about consciousness. We have the strong impression that we choose when we do and don’t act and, as a consequence, we hold people responsible for their actions[/i].”

dhw: Yes, that is the essence of free will.

“[i]Yet many of the ways we encounter the world don’t require any real conscious processing, and our feeling of agency can be deeply misleading[/i].”

They require conscious processing when there is need for a decision. That is when free will comes into play.

"[i]If our experience of action doesn’t really affect what we do in the moment, then what is it for? Why have it? Contrary to what many people believe, [b]I think agency is only relevant to what happens after we act – when we try to justify and explain ourselves to each other[/b][/i]." (DAVID’S bold)

DAVID’s comment: [i]Libet did not interpret correctly. The bold considers agency a feeling after we act. That sounds correct to me.[/i]

dhw; Perhaps you understand all this better than I do. “Feeling of agency” presumably means the feeling that we are the “agents” responsible for our actions. If not, what exactly does it mean?

That is his meaning as I read it.

dhw: Once again, we are confronted with the mystery of consciousness. Is he saying that when we need to make a decision, we do not consciously weigh up the pros and cons offered by the information at our disposal?

Again I read it as acknowledging that we do weight pros and cons before choosing.

dhw: If so, I completely disagree, and I’m surprised that you endorse the bold. That doesn’t mean I am championing free will, because this depends on one’s view of the influences that cause us to process the information in a particular way. But perhaps I've missed his point?

As I read it I've accepted his view.