Artificial intelligence research may have hit a dead end

An emergent property is tied to the operation of the system from which it emerges. In this case the theory is that the system from which consciousness emerges is the actions of billions of neurons in the brain. The actions of these neurons cease at death, therefore the emergent property (consciousness) ceases and no longer exists. So in this theory consciousness is totally dependent on the workings of a functional brain. So this theory is a thoroughgoing materialist neuroscientific "explanation" of consciousness. That is hardly "metaphysically neutral". 

Simple chemistry/physics analogy: "wetness", liquidity, and a skin tension effect are emergent properties of H2O molecules at a certain temperature and pressure and with a suitable containment.  These properties emerge from the ultimately quantum mechanical behavior of these molecules when in close contact. Take away the assemblage of H2O molecules or the necessary pressure or their quantum mechanical properties and there is no wetness or liquidity, etc.

Even if the authors explicitly state they are seeking a materialist theory, the recorded data remains metaphysically neutral -that's just the recording of fluctuations in neuronal firing. Regardless of one's metaphysical position, one has to explain why the brain exists and behaves like it does. I don't see how an Idealist, Dualist, Neutral Monist, Panpsychist, etc are able to complete their metaphysical picture without explaining what the brain is doing and its relation to consciousness.

Additionally, without picking a metaphysics, we can observe the structure of the brain - and by structure I am including processes in time along with its form in space. It's "spontaneous fluctuations" that happen in the brain, which make it structurally different from Turing Machines we produce through computer engineering. Why, regardless of metaphysics, we have reason to doubt machine "learning" is going handle tasks the same way our brains + our consciousness does.