Even then it would probably end up being an emergent phenomena not necessarily understanble. As in you can simulate a brain perhaps in the distant future and well you have consciousness by some metrics we choose to measure it. So what? We put these bits of code in, we ran this training input set on it, and now consciousness comes out of the other end, we won't necessarily understand how and what it is.
We see ones and zeroes go into our ALU and the result is an operating system. Okay, but WHY?
Or, we see two molecules joining... and the result is a human baby! Okay, but WHY?
You can't necessarily see the entire outside system from micro-components.
Right, but we can answer those questions. We can explain how the high-level OS is written in lower-level primitives, how these correspond to machine instructions, and how those correspond to electrical impulses. You wouldn't say "oh yeah, an OS is just electrical pulses firing, there's nothing you don't already understand here", or "oh, you understand basic organic chemistry, now you understand all animals".
I'm not saying there's anything mystical to it, but there's this great big chunk that we don't understand yet, and saying "oh it's all electrical impulses" doesn't really shed any light on that.
You make an interesting point, however I think the case could be made that consciousness emerging from neural activity could be the result of emergence.
So neurons fire and we see this pattern of activity in a state of wakefulness etc, etc... well, okay but WHY?
I would say it will never be explained until we can recreate a consciousness artificially, and since it's next to impossible to experience another's consciousness, it might be an unsolvable problem.