"it's 7:15 a.m....There's no reason to stay in bed. You tell yourself to get up. It doesn't happen. Then, miraculously, thirty seconds later, you find you have done it. You don't remember reissuing the command, but there you are, standing by the window, gazing bleary-eyed out into the sunshine. You routinely operate without conscious control."
Ignoring Michael Brooks' what-you-mean-you nonsense, I cannot make any sense of this as any argument against free will. Non-instantaneous response to an attempt to act, sure. But that getting out of bed happened without conscious intervention just because there was a 30 second ye-gods-do-I-have-to moment?
I actually understand the William James analysis, but he didn't use it as an attack on free will, just an observation about the relationship between conscious awareness of will and will and action. Whole other ball of whatever.