By understanding the laws of nature, I've come to the conclusion that
everything evolves according to the laws of physics, and that includes
the formation of conscious and unconscious thoughts in the brain.
A side-point, first... Even if I grant the conclusion (which seems reasonable in a tautological sort of way), I have to point out that there is a conceptual chasm between 'the laws of physics' and 'our understanding of the laws of physics.' Physics is a set of models about how the world works, and as accurate as those models may be, a model is never more than a loose description of those aspects of reality that happen to catch our attention. We don't 'know' that the laws of physics are deterministic: the 'Clockwork Universe' is a holdover from 18th century philosophy that is gradually eroding under modern research.
But putting that aside, this is the kind of philosophical question that the later Wittgenstein though needed therapy rather than an answer. What use does this question have? We have the subjective experience of free will — we perceive ourselves as having the power to make free choices and decisions, perhaps within certain constraints — what reason (aside from idle speculation) do we have for questioning that experience? I look out my window and I see a tree, and while I could play the Descartes game of trying to convince myself that tree does not exist (despite my subjective experience of it), why would I? Likewise, I see myself make a decision — I turn left when I equally well could have turned right — why would I try to convince myself that it was (in fact) not a decision at all. Sometimes there are reasons to question these naïve presumptions (e.g., the sun does not actually 'rise' in the east, and we can prove that to ourselves), but why question an experience without a proper use or reason?
In the Western world, the arguments against free will all stem from anti-religious, anti-metaphysical worldview. There is a strong reaction in analytic empiricist circles against organized religion, from a strong and bitter historical rivalry. That reactions extended to metaphysical concepts like God, and the soul that lie at the heart of religion, and the rejection of 'free will' is a tactical assault on those metaphysical concepts: negate free will (so hard-line empiricists believe) and one negates the soul, God, and religion in one fell swoop. But the concept of free will doesn't require a soul, or God, or religion; it is an experience, and metaphysical concepts arise in order to explain that experience, not the other way around.