If you created a 'biocomputer', it would be an experiment in genetics, not computing.
And simulation is not the same as 'being'. If you think it is, you are dangerous and should not be playing video games to start with. To make sure you're perfectly clear, you do not really get to drive a submarine in SH3. You do not actually drive a car really fast in GTA. The AI is not really alive and thinking.
There is no distinguishable difference between the intelligence of our proposed AI and a human. By your definition of alive and thinking, we aren't alive and thinking either.
We're simply going through the motions as our neurons have dictated we should, as an AI would do with its CPU when presented with a situation. It's just that theirs will be with transistors and ours is with neurons.
You fail to see that the makeup of the intelligence doesn't make it any less intelligent or more intelligent. They are equal. Both living. Both thinking.
Why are you you? Why do you only see through your own eyes? Why can't you see out of other people's eyes, instead? Why do you
have a conciousness?
We can't really answer these questions in an accurate way (without being extremely pretentious, and I know somebody will come in and be just that). But why do we think the computer will get this just because we do? What you're suggesting is a
complete recreation of the human brain,
including sentient thought, self awareness, and conciousness. I'll admit, if somebody pulled that off, you could probably argue that is
is alive. But it wouldn't be an AI if you created a 'biocomputer'. It would just be another organism. But if it doesn't have a body of its own, if it's just an array of data streaming through a microchip, it is not alive any more than what I am typing into this post is.
The AI doesn't get to have a conciousness. It can't. It gets a bunch of reactions, but that is all.