[BoxedEmpathy]

Interesting way to look at it.

I suppose I have trouble seeing it that way because I view words as pointers to meaning. The word itself holds no intrinsic value; it's the meaning humans attach to it and the context in which it's used that gives it significance.

When we give "thinking" a scientifically testable definition we can reason around it in a more academic way.

I've read psych papers that defined "thinking" as cognition, measured by action potentials. A participant was said to be "thinking more" when their EEG showed increased activity.

It's important to understand that "thinking" here was only defined within the context of the paper.

To use an analogy, many people say their computer is thinking when it's undergoing a heavy processor load. Strictly speaking this is not the case, their computer cannot think, but they aren't wrong or incorrect because in that context 'thinking' literally means 'processing'.