>> I am positive that we can't agree on a robust definition of thinking, because the definition of thinking is beyond human understanding.

In that case, shouldn't the people who say LLMs can think do the hard work of explaining what "thinking" means and why they er think it's done by LLMs?

Surely the default position should be that LLMs don't think because they don't belong to the class of entities that we know can think. If that default assumption is wrong, well, then, someone has to do the hard work of rejecting it. But just claiming that we think they think because who knows what thinking is, is just an excuse to not do the work.