Yes, I think there’s a simple reason why scientists are “stuck” here. If we say consciousness doesn’t emerge, it must mean it was already here. So consciousness would be an intrisinc property of the universe. Something that we “pick up” from the world around us. Indeed it is what some spiritualists seem to refer to, but I suppose it doesn’t need to be something mystical. But still, it is something that we haven’t managed to explain scientifically with physics, so I agree it’s “an invitation for the metaphysical”.
My “theory” is that it’s more plausible that consciousness emerges just like life emerges. I would even say that they are one and the same, explained with different concepts. And so becoming conscious is the same as being born, and death is the end of it all (the actual person or feeling-being).
I did some research in the site and it seems there’s no disagreement here:
Actual freedom: This physical universe is the source of human life (matter gives rise to consciousness).
Spiritual freedom: God (by whatever name) is the source of both the universe and human life (consciousness gives rise to matter).
[180 Degrees Opposite]
So I guess an actualist would say “matter gives rise to consciousness” instead of “consciousness emerging from matter” to focus on the causal/one-way aspect, and it’s interesting how it specifically says “matter gives rise to consciousness” instead of “consciousness arises from matter” to put the emphasis on the matter. Another example of the care they put in words to be as clear as possible with language!