Usually it's agent's contemplation that gives rise to a specific choice.

Its the state of a system that gives rise to the contemplation. Nothing is free from determinism its determinism all the way down.

The interesting question is what are the myriad factors that contribute to the state of a system at a specific time. From hormones to shoe color to genes to what you ate for breakfast to how you were raised.

And then agent's contemplation gives rise to a specific choice.

Yeah psychology is interesting but not only does it not really have anything to do with the article but it also doesnt provide anything particularly compelling as far as the whole question of "free will" goes.

It's relevant, because if agent's contemplation gives rise to a specific choice, it means the choice is determined by the agent, and thus the agent controls the choice and is responsible for it.

Yes this is true. Also the agents choice depends entirely on the state of the agent at the time it makes the choice. The contemplation is just another process that is determined by the state of the system. Like I said its interesting and theres a whole field of study for this but as far as this post and the question of free will go its entirely irrelevant.

If the choice is determined by the agent, why do you think it's irrelevant to free will?

Because as I've said above, the state of the agent determines what choice it will make. The state of the agent is determined by outside stimuli just like everything else. This conversation here is a great example why I consider the idea of free will to be mostly a religious concept and a thought-trap.

Like I said before the more interesting questions are about the interaction of a system with the rest of the world such as what brought the system to a state that it makes a certain choice, what are the dynamics of that state, how might that state change based on different stimuli, can we nail down what exactly is going on in all the relevant parts of the system at a given time etc and if not how close can we get.

I don't follow your logic. You don't like free will and the claim about irrelevance is an awkward formulation of your disdain?

Ive got nothing against free will. Its just an idea thats important to some religious beliefs. Its just kind of pointless to talk about when were talking about neurology and the source of consciousness.

I do wish the ever increasing stigma around it in serious conversations would hurry up and increase so we could stop wasting our time with it though ;)