I believe we could approximate this in a computer if it was a very complicated computer. One thing that would be missing are biochemical reactions. It would be extremely difficult to replicate that.
It sounds to me like you've bought into the notion that it is the brain which is conscious, and not the whole body. This is a very common belief, but I strongly believe it to be inaccurate. I'm not alone. Many in cognitive science and philosophy of mind take my side on this. (e.g.,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition ) A brain in a vat, disconnected from a body, would not be at all aware and conscious (even if it could be kept "alive" in there, somehow. Maybe (hypothetically) it would have memories. I don't know, but it certainly would not be having any present moment experiences. Or feelings, I would argue -- for as I said feelings are felt in throughout the body. That's where we "register" them, whether or not we're aware of this fact. (Lots of folks are not aware of this fact and have never explored the question in their own experience much.)
I'm not confusing anything. Feelings (emotions) are thoughts.
Feelings certainly do become thoughts, in a certain specific sense. That is, we have thoughts
about our feelings. And our thoughts most certainly influence or affect our feelings. Indeed, thoughts and feelings are often very much in what is known as a bi-directional system of mutual influence. Each influences the other so much that they are interwoven, somewhat.
I want to ask you now, though..., as you see it, are sensations thoughts. That is, are they identical, as you suggested feelings and thoughts are?
In my understanding, feeling is the broader category (set) which includes feelings and emotions. Not all feelings are emotions, in this way of seeing things. And there is simply feeling itself, yet undifferentiated into the plural form of specific potentially nameable "feelings". It turns out to be possible to be aware of feeling, per se, in its undifferentiated form -- but it takes much practice to get there for most of us.
Emotions are those well worn, familiar types with names which allow us to immediately empathize around the name itself: sadness, joy, fear, anger, etc. Not all that we feel is one of these, and so not all feeling/s are emotion, per se. They share the same ground, however.
Particular emotions are like particular waves on the sea shore. Feeling is the water itself. Particular, nameable feelings are of the water, too, of course.
Feeling is experienced as sensation. We can certainly think about these sensations but to say that these sensations are "thoughts" is just weird.
If your argument is simply that we will never turn a computer into a human, then I agree. If you are saying a computer will never have it's own version of thoughts and feelings, I'm not so sure that's true.
Computers have one aspect of "thought" but lack the other one which only living beens such as humans share in common. Much of our human (and animal) thought is, on one level, a form of calculation. This is what we have in common with computers. Computers, including all of the most advanced AI systems, are not aware of their thoughts, however. Nor are they likely ever to be aware of their thoughts -- or of anything. An advanced AI system may have a camera, a rough analogue of a human or animal eye, but it cannot see, per se, because it is not aware. It has no vision, even though it has the visual apparatus of a camera. It has no true hearing, no true sensations, no experience of any kind -- no inner feelings, nothing like a human in any respect! No one is home and there are no lights on -- any more than a simple kitchen appliance like a toaster or a coffee bean grinder. Do you think your electric razor (if you have one) feels all warm and loving toward you and is happy to see you in the morning?
Awareness is actually a great mystery. No one actually knows (in science or philosophy) why (or how!) we are aware, experiencing beings rather than empty of awareness and experience like a toaster. I suspect the answer to this mystery, if ever it will be found, will be found in a new way of understanding life. I suspect we know a great deal about biology, but are lacking a basic understanding, still. Something is missing from what we know about life.