Ok, so I know there's a significant camp of people who: (A) Think that consciousness is physical (by-product of the brain) (B) Think that they have free will, in the sense that the atoms moving around their brain don't necessarily cause their actions, or that consciousness is having a backwards causal influence on the brain thus giving them free will. Now, there might be some stances to add to (B), but I think that'll suffice. I have HUGE problems with this position, I have stated some of them in somewhat unrelated topics, but I want to address them here. Let consciousness = C Let matter = M The logic is as follows: IF C arises from M, and physical law is all that has been observed(key word) to enact/enable causality (let's not get into definition/word games here) on M, then isn't it logically fallacious, given all observations, to argue, or even expect, that C isn't bound to operate under the laws that govern M, and under nothing else, given that (in this thought experiment's model of reality) the brain, made of M, causes C? If that logic is correct, then doesn't it follow that we have ZERO reason, and ONLY wild speculation, to expect free will to exist if the brain causes consciousness?