It is relatively easy to see why consciousness possesses survival advantage, Yuval Noah Harari and the rest of them notwithstanding. The same is true of free will. Since I have already explained this in responses to other articles of yours, I won't repeat myself.

Appealing to evolution, of course, doesn't explain how inert matter can give rise to consciousness, but since we are talking about living things it hardly seems fair to require that.
There is no lack of phenomenon that defy human logic. Quantum mechanics is like that. Also dark matter, which is a kind of place holder for the fact that we cannot explain our observation that the rotation speeds of distant galaxies does not cause them to fly apart. Similarly dark energy, which is another place holder, this time for the fact that we observe that the expansion of the universe is accelerating over time, and it is natural to ask, "What is causing that?" Answer, dark energy. What the fack is that? It's what makes the expansion of the universe accelerate. A circular argument, but here as elsewhere, nature does not ask our leave. Our hominid ancestors understood the world well enough to survive, thrive, and dominate. An understanding of quantum mechanics and modern cosmology were not necessary.
But like many animals they were smart and curious, in fact, smarter and more curious than any other living creature that we know of, which is what led to our uncovering such puzzling phenomenon. But I repeat: nature does not ask our leave. It is a brute fact that we cannot perceive "things in themselves." Consciousness and free will are not pollutants, not useless fluff, but key abilities in the struggle for survival. People like David Chalmers can insist all they want that this doesn't "really explain" anything, but such obtuseness leads to notions such as electrons being conscious, which is more like the raving of a madman than a serious philosophical idea.