Why do you think brains aren't made out of silicon then?
This is a completely illogical argument. "Characteristic X arises due to characteristic A or B" is patently not equivalent to "characteristic X arises only due to characteristic A", and hence "if character X arises then character A must be present" is not in any way implied.

Our brains aren't made of silicon because they evolved from carbon based life. That's why. They can't be made of two different things at once!
The only difference is the degree to which the said particles have the potential to manifest into greater structures, in this case what we'd refer to as a human being. As you can see the process of evolution happened on its own, it didn't need somebody there to build it.
I suppose I agree with your initial statement, and as there is no reason why silicon could not manifest into a greater structure exactly the same in terms of function, there is no reason why a computer shouldn't be conscious. I refer you again to my response in my previous post to the first section of yours, because it's pretty much exactly the same point.
You guys also need to expand on why 'creating a conscious being' doesn't present the problem of it being dead. Saying life is just 'chemical reactions' is like a sophomoric description and if anything, actually indicates that consciousness isn't an emergent property at all, since 'chemical reactions' provides no distinctions anywhere in space or time.
That is patently not our position, our position is that life is a very specific set of chemical processes; furthermore, consciousness, which is not equivalent to life, is also something that emerges due to specific kinds of systems being embodied in the physical world; and as the only realistic way to do this in our universe is through chemistry (as nothing else allows the building of large, stable structures to emulate systems), this means consciousness emerges due to a specific series of chemical reactions.
If consciousness was an emergent property:
"Emerging" cannot occur.
Kind of doesn't make sense but okay.
Emerging is consequent to the field of consciousness, which is perpetually interacting with matter and energy.
Again this is just a statement rather than an argument so at the moment I don't really have any reason to believe it. I can give various arguments for my position though.
he universe would not have come into manifestation. I.e. not even evolution can occur. Because all processes do not happen by magic or by accident. They are bound in the field of consciousness.
Same point really; consciousness causes first cause causes universe just muddies the original problem of first cause causes universe.
Supposing the above were not true; let's say life can be created. This is contradictory, because if consciousness is an emergent property then there's no reason in ordinary life why it should be destroyed.
My views, which can be argued for, are that physical embodiments of certain systems cause consciousness. A basic understanding of this view tells you that there is no contradiction in consciousness ending (...and as you don't have evidence it doesn't I don't even see where the implication is supposed to lie here), because all that needs to happen is for the physical substrate to cease to embody that system; for example, if your heart stopped working causing respiration to cease and neurons to stop firing signals to one another; or if you dived head first off a building bringing a cessation even to the coherence of the matter that constituted said system.