I think you might be reading more into my post than is there. I said 'emergent behavior' or 'emergent properties' or just 'emergence' is what is creating 'mind'. It's not woo or mysticism. Because it is not yet known exactly what causes sentience research efforts, for instance IBM, are modeling brains.
Whole brain modelling may be required to unpick sentience while we study it, but I see little reason to believe there's anything going on that is more than it appears. Emergence from the simple components is probably the answer; the requirement for particular wetware with particular molecules and structures of the brain is a claim without evidence. Once you get as far as Penrose's silly insistence that "quantum tubules" are the seat of consciousness you're just rebranding mysticism in a pretty scientific dress.
"... and that goes against everything we know about the brain." Surely you jest. Model neurons will probably not be required after we find out what they are doing. Some peeps think it is necessary to investigate what it is that they do. It may not be all that necessary but unfortunately I don't know either.
As far as we understand the behaviour of neurons they do not a single thing that cannot be done with a normal computer (as can be proved mathematically). Further, everything we know how works in the brain operates by the complex interactions of high level components not the low level vageries of how it is constructed.