Your walls of text don't help you establish the reality of free will. Your whole foundation rests on nothing more than asserting that the ability to make decisions - choose options based on sets of criteria - which any information processor with sufficient capability is able of doing regardless of it being a unconscious activity.
It's not "unconscious" if the human is conscious when making the decision and knows s/he's making a decision. Just because some unconscious elements may be happening does not negate the consciousness also happening. As long as you know you're making a decision it's not an "unconscious activity" but a conscious one.
If an entity is doing a selection process but is not conscious of it because it's automatic (no choice being made), like a muscle twitch etc., then it's not a free-will act. But in many cases there is consciousness happening at the time, just preceding the decision or selected act, and so it's not an "unconscious activity" but is a conscious one.
Even worse for your assertion, the brain itself processes information prior to conscious representation in the form of thought.
Yes, but also it does this AFTER conscious thought. It does BOTH. Some consciousness follows after the brain processing, but there's also some consciousness which PRECEDES it -- which you're ignoring. There is consciousness both BEFORE AND AFTER the brain processing. If the decision-making occurs on Friday, it was preceded by consciousness on Thursday; or if the decision happens at 3 o'clock, it was preceded by consciousness at 2:59. That earlier consciousness affects the later decision-making. Consciousness a few seconds before the final decision and action can be an influence on that decision and acting -- regardless that there was some other consciousness later, and also regardless that there was some UNconscious activity in addition to the conscious activity.
You are mentally deranged if you can't understand this. Didn't you decide to post your comment at a certain time? And yet a few minutes or seconds earlier you were conscious and thought about it, and that earlier thinking probably influenced your decision to do your post. And this is the case even if that earlier thinking itself was also influenced by something still earlier. It doesn't matter that everything was caused by something earlier (which itself was caused by something earlier, and earlier, etc.). The point is that the final decision made at a particular time happened AFTER there were some earlier conscious moments which influenced it -- whatever happened later was influenced (caused) by something earlier.
. . . the brain itself processes information prior to conscious representation in the form of thought. Thought being fed information by underlying processing milliseconds before being experienced in conscious form.
Yes, but that underlying processing itself still was preceded by earlier conscious thought. You can't insist that there was never any conscious thought prior to any decision anyone ever made. You are a nutcase to say such a thing. That earlier conscious thought also had its effect on the later decision-making.
You are somehow hallucinating that there can't ever be any consciousness prior to any decision-making, or that somehow any consciousness that happens is immediately snuffed out, leaving no trace, so it can't ever influence anything later, even that we can't remember having ever been conscious in the past. Snap out of it! You were conscious 5 minutes ago, yesterday, a week ago, etc., and those past conscious times left their trace and effect on later experience. Otherwise you'd have no memory. Everything you remember from the past is caused by past consciousness which left its impact on your later experience and decisions, and especially the experience happening very soon (seconds) after.
And as long as the act, or the decision, happens while (or after) one was conscious and thinking about it, then it's a free-will decision or act. In a case where the "decision" or selection happens totally without any consciousness of it, then it's not a free choice. Even if it's true that some "decision-making" (or selection) happens without any consciousness of it, many selections do happen with consciousness of it happening along with it, or prior to the decision or action selected.
Also, if the action or muscle motion happens automatically without any power by you to prevent it, even if you try not to do it, then when it happens anyway against your will it's obviously not a free-will act.
You don't negate this by just saying there are some unconscious acts also, or some unconscious activities going on, like brain or nerve impulses along with a decision. These may also happen, unconsciously, and earlier, but they don't negate the consciousness also happening during a decision (and before a decision). There can be both conscious and unconscious elements going on, and even if sometimes the unconscious elements are stronger than we realize, still they do not negate the conscious elements, not even if they happen earlier at some "time=0" point -- nothing about those unconscious elements can erase the conscious elements also happening and influencing a decision happening later.
Neither consciousness or conscious will being the driver of the brain, how . . .
But sometimes the conscious will is one "driver" or influence on a decision made. There's no such thing as "the driver of the brain" as though there is only one unique single cause and no other. There can be a million causal elements driving the brain.
As long as any consciousness happens prior to the final decision or action -- e.g., seconds before -- it probably has its influence on that decision/action, along with other influences. Obviously there are decisions, and acts chosen, which can be "vetoed" by us if we have time to think and "change our mind" about the action to be taken. So in those cases the consciousness of it, happening before the act is performed, can cause us to change the act about to happen, and whether we "veto" it or not, whatever happens becomes a "voluntary" act or free-will choice, because we were conscious of it early enough to make the change, and that consciousness of it could influence us to "veto" the act, depending upon our judgment in that time span. A longer time gap in which to think -> greater element of free will in whatever the final choice turns out to be.
Neither . . . being the driver of the brain, how it acquires or processes information or the thoughts and decisions that are brought to conscious attention.
You can't arbitrarily decree that no conscious thought can ever be a "driver" of later brain activity. Sometimes that earlier conscious moment, maybe a few seconds earlier, can influence the later brain activity processing the information. The consciousness itself provides information for the brain to process. Suppose you're about to decide to put on a coat, but then suddenly it gets hot unexpectedly, and so for that reason you change your mind. Your consciousness of the sudden heat caused new information to your brain to process, and so the decision was changed as a result, i.e., the brain WAS DRIVEN at least in part by that conscious input. Surely there are many such cases where awareness of something just prior to the decision can influence the brain to do the change, and so that awareness or consciousness is a "driver of the brain" in that case.
(How can you not figure this out?)
You are spruiking an idealistic belief, a term that has no real basis beyond common usage, meaning that someone is not forced to make a decision. Not being forced . . .
"idealistic"? "no real basis"? What are you trying to spruik? that "common usage" is not permitted?
Yes, that "someone is not forced" is part of what "free will" means. But also it means that one is conscious of the selection taking place. One must be both conscious and also not coerced = free will. So what's the "no real basis" and "idealistic" about this normal use of words? We're not supposed to use words normally? we're supposed to run out words incoherently like you're doing? and come up with hallucinations that no conscious activity can ever happen or have an influence on anything?
Not being forced doesn't take the nature of decision making in terms of brain function.
What
not being forced does or doesn't "take the nature of" in terms of brain function is your specialty.
We'll assume it must be true because you spruiked it (whatever it means).