> Animals can also think

What are you saying?

Are you saying you have a clear definition for thinking, and you can demonstrate that animals pass that definituon?

Then share the definition.

Or are you simply defining thinking as a common property of humans and animals, using animals and human behavior as exemplars?

A useful definition for focusing inquiry. But it does not clarify or constrain what else might or might not be enabled to think.

Or are you defining thinking as an inherent property of animals and humans that other things cannot have because they are not animals or humans?

Fine, but that that’s an exercise in naming. Something we are all free to do however we want. It has no explanatory power.