Some may argue that the same could be said about a child- we 'create' it and then 'program' it with what we want to, but I think this trivializes humanity.
I'm glad I don't share your viewpoint on what constitutes 'trivial'. To me, when we can understand something in more detail, such as how a child learns and grows, this knowledge of seemingly simple, but innately complex processes makes these events all the more exhilarating.
Children begin processing information at a rate that we are incapable of quantifying before they even learn a language.
So when we can quantify the rate at which children process information, and in the event that computer process information faster than we can quantify, the computer is alive and the children are not?
We can create an AI that has the ability to learn, and an AI that can masquerade or exude human characteristics and behavior, but it's all an act. It's a toy. It isn't 'alive' in the sense that we are alive (whatever that sense may be).
I think this is your problem right here. You don't actually know what constitutes 'alive' and what does not. Neither do I, but I'm open to debate it. You just say that humans are alive, and computers are not, and therefore never will be. Also, I think you're mixing two ideas here; one is the idea of Artificial Intelligence, and the other the creation of a computer that 'is' a human. I agree with you that an AI mimicking human reactions is in fact just 'acting' like a human, and is not an actual human, but I don't see what this has to do with being 'alive'. My cat does not (at least not when I'm around) "exude human characteristics and behavior", but even if it were, it would still be alive.
Human characteristics are not the defining characteristics of being alive.
The idea that we could create an AI that could think 'outside' of the box that we create it in is, to me, a childish sci fi fantasy. [...] I rest assured that this is one of those that we can safely say will never come to pass.
I don't see what's stopping us? Just because we can't see the finish line, it doesn't mean it isn't there. So far your argument for what is 'alive' and what isn't is that what you say is 'alive' is, and everything else isn't, even things (computers of the future) that don't exist yet. I don't think any single person has jurisdiction over what is considered alive and what isn't.
Likewise with a "thinking" computer, it is still just silicon and lines of code, not a living being
Surely you must have heard the argument where humans are likened to 'organic' computers, made of Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, etc. and lines of DNA? Again, you must find that this trivializes the miracle of life. I just find that it adds to it.