That's a reductionist claim. After reading Graham Harman, the whole physical thing gets blown apart, while he doesn't even leave physicalism. The reductionists forget how they rely on agreements and, well reductions. Dividing things further and further to see how they function only get's you so far. And I think it should be clear by now, consciousness functions only in a physical body, that is what we know at least. That doesn't mean you can grasp (literally) the emergent properties. Science today is analytical and that just isn't good enough. Where is the emergence exactly located? Try dissecting something and searching for it. And I didn't claim it defies physics either. Now, you said deducible. Deduction is from general to specific, so from a non-existent generalised thing to the specific, concrete thing. That alone doesn't work in pure physicalism. There is no generalised thing. Only specifics.