Maybe, though in my experience beginner PhD students will often write like this in early manuscript drafts after they've been working on some project for a few months. Usually it's easily fixed by having someone more experienced proof-read it with comments explaining why that is bad style. Worst case, they'll learn the hard way (i.e., conference reviewers). But seeing this without any proof-reading on some public physics lab site just makes me cringe that they have unchecked write access to that site.
See... but I would say that experiential consciousness is unexplained and impossible to measure, and yet, if I were to rank everything based on how certain I am that it exists, experiential consciousness would be at the top of the list. If you take away all of my senses, what am I left with? Just the ability to think and experience my own existence.
Well... you are certain that consciousness exists because you experience it: that is measuring.
As for explaining it, I guess it's more of a definitional problem than a physical one. I'm still confident that one day we'll be able to look at something and approximate how conscious it is.
Free will, on the other hand, requires supernatural phenomenons coming from outside the material world (dualism) to explain how we, humans, can make decisions free of any (or some) of the influences of the physical world. I don't buy it, and I believe the burden of proof falls on the ones who do.
