> "Conscious experience exists."

The appearance of it certainly does. What remains an open question is the nature of consciousness and what, if any, casual power it has. Many theories feel that consciousness doesn't drive anything but it a by-product of neural activity (ex. illusionism, identity theory, etc).

You absolutely are making a (big) assumption if you want to treat consciousness as the driver behind decisions rather than the brain. (And need to address some serious questions such as how can an emergent property push around neurons such that "decisions" turn into physical actions.)

​

> "the properties of the little parts of the brain are not anything like the properties of the whole person."

I don't understand how this addresses my point. I'll try to be direct - when we change the "little parts" you change the behaviour of the whole person. So the "little parts" are crucial to the discussion and cannot be hand-waved away.

​

> "Free will involves conscious decisions."

I disagree and I explained why. Conscious decisions (which I called deliberations) are not "free" if the elements are constrained. I don't think you addressed that.

​

> "Anything else would be like failing to find the conscious experience"

Conscious experiences arises from the sum of the "little parts" of the brain and when you change the "little parts" you change the conscious experience. So you can't just ignore the "little parts" and say they are irrelevant when they give rise to and shape the conscious experience.