''That's true but I'm not presenting something as factual when it clearly isn't understood as factual.''
You don't appear to accept what is factual. It is factual that the senses acquire information which is transmitted to brains neural architecture, regions, lobes, visual cortex, auditory cortex, which process that information, integrating it with memory, enabling recognition, thought and action in response to ones circumstances, physical needs and psychological wants.
This is not controversial.
You need to think about the implications of brain agency. The senses don't have will, they have function, the optic or auditory nerves, etc, don't have will, they have function. neurons have evolved structure to process information, etc. Will is not formed until late in the process, consciousness and will play their roles but are not the underlying drivers of behaviour, which is the brain as a parallel information processor.
It has been explained why.
''I don't think "free will" is a very sensible concept, and you don't need neuroscience to reject it -- any mechanistic view of the world is good enough, and indeed you could even argue on purely conceptual grounds that the opposite of determinism is randomness, not free will! Most thoughtful neuroscientists I know have replaced the concept of free will with the concept of rationality -- that we select our actions based on a kind of practical reasoning. And there is no conflict between rationality and the mind as a physical system -- After all, computers are rational physical systems! - Martha Farah, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and a prominent neuroethicist.
On the neurology of morals
Patients with medial prefrontal lesions often display irresponsible behavior, despite being intellectually unimpaired. But similar lesions occurring in early childhood can also prevent the acquisition of factual knowledge about accepted standards of moral behavior
