There would be a mistake in stating that, in that ‘consciousness’ would then be taken as a ‘thing in itself’ the same way as a ‘self’ is. Whereas what consciousness actually is, is those very physical systems in operation. So “consciousness emerging” in this context becomes an invitation for the metaphysical once more - where science seems to be stuck with their understanding also.
The instinctual passions (as well as the self which automatically forms out of them) are not physical. They trigger releases of hormonal substances in the body and are coded for in the DNA which are all physical things and yet the instinctual passions themselves (fear, aggression, nurture and desire) are not physical.
Richard used a brilliant metaphor of computer software to explain this. In that the hardware is physical, the screen is physical and yet the software programme itself is not. As such it can be simply deleted.
Yes these things are important to delineate but only for experiential purposes not as an end in itself. What you will find though is that actualism is presented exactly with that in mind - maximum experiential effect. Richard did say that his writing was not to be studied in academia but rather used as a catapult to launch one into the actual world - where those facts could be experienced directly rather than philosophised/intellectualised about (as you pointed out).
As an example I will direct to my post yesterday where I was having fun trying to put actual intimacy in normal words :
It is interesting to try using normal words to describe actual intimacy but it is a closeness that cannot be measured by the normal parameters of near or far, of here and there, it is that close!
This kind of assessment would seem like madness in the eyes of academic scrutiny - “what do you mean it’s that close that it cannot be measured, the distance must be measured!” 
. And yet if you recall your PCE’s you might remember a closeness of this kind, it has to the lived to be known. And it cannot be smuggled back into reality either haha.
There is a great post that Srinath (one of the basically free guys) wrote but I cannot find it anywhere. Maybe one of the guys good at finding quotes can locate it, I will do my best to reiterate though as it would be useful here.
It was expounding on the differences between actualism and spiritualism and the point was that in spirituality one watches the TV drama that is the human condition and in order to ‘free oneself’ one begins to focus in on the individual pixels until they become unreal - and hey presto! The problem is apparently solved.
I will just add that science (being rooted in spirituality also) essentially plays the same game.
Whereas with actualism there is the understanding (from the PCE) that the TV drama is ultimately not actual and yet one is nevertheless trapped in this very real drama. The way out then is to become fully involved in this TV drama all the way to it’s conclusion.
The way actualism is discussed then is specifically to facilitate this second option. The danger of “jumping the gun” is that ‘I’ will become convinced that ‘I’ am/can be this flesh and blood body rather than ‘me’ altruistically sacrificing ‘myself’ in order to free the actual flesh and blood body which ‘I’ currently posses.