If we were to take the outcome of the Libet experiments at face value, and assume that at the smallest level our brain makes the decision before were consciously aware (if we generalize this and assume that this applies to all levels of thought/deliberation not just small random wrist movements) wouldn't this imply that our entire conscious experience is an epiphenomenon. Which is not a popular position to hold, considering the evolutionary implications that consciousness holds.

I'm confused by this assessment because in this video (I apologize for the pop-sciness of it and of my question) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSYcUl2TXDc at 6:16 the neuroscientist in the panel makes claim that in the Libet experiments our brain makes the decision before our consciousness is aware, she begins to muse about why we evolved free-will. Shouldn't her question be why we evolved consciousness?

I find it kind of strange that if one were to believe the outcome of the Libet experiments, the implications would obviously point to epiphenomenalism, which seems (to me) absurd. Besides that, at the end of the talk Brian Greene begins to rapt about how determinism doesn't matter because we are the arbiter of our actions, yet 4 minutes before she contradicts him by saying that our subconscious brain is the one calling the shots. I think I'm a bit bewildered by the stranglehold that the Libet experiments hold on the talks of free will and our conscious experience. So what the fuck am I experiencing, do I have agency of my actions (I'm not implying free will BTW that's a different discussion) or is my brain calling the shots before I realize it, implying epiphenomenalism.