The problem seems to be with the expression 'to get consciousness'. One finds all sorts of interesting correlations in the scientific literature but the causal gap remains. The problem arises because of the gap between our first-person subjective experiences and the third-person observations of the brain and neurological functioning. One way to attempt to bridge the gap is to deny the authority of the first person perspective (e.g Dennett) but a number of others (e.g Chalmers) are not persuaded. It looks like the problem will be around for some time.
If you haven't already read it, you might enjoy The Tree of Knowledge by Maturana and Varela (https://www.shambhala.com/the-tree-of-knowledge.html). One concept discussed in the book is the idea of keeping our accounting systems straight, i.e. not mistakenly trying to use one system to describe another when such an application is not suitable. This may be similar to the point made by Professor Kelly above. I also agree with him that this problem is far from being solved. I, for one, am not convinced by Dennet--after all, what is conscious awareness if not the first person interpretation and report of experience? However, that may just be the bias of my ego (by which I mean my first-person awareness) speaking(!) We may discover that organisms have other types of consciousness, at the cellular level, for example, and that we have to revise our very terminology (and thus, our world view) in order to begin to understand the question. For example, the new research into the relationship between the gut and the brain may change the nature of this type of dialogue.