Please, take the pencil and draw the line between thinking and non-thinking systems. Hell I'll even take a line drawn between thinking and non-thinking organisms if you have some kind of bias towards sodium channel logic over silicon trace logic. Good luck.
Even if you can't define the exact point that A becomes not-A, it doesn't follow that there is no distinction between the two. Nor does it follow that we can't know the difference. That's a pretty classic fallacy.
For example, you can't name the exact time that day becomes night, but it doesn't follow that there is no distinction.
A bunch of transistors being switched on and off, no matter how many there are, is no more an example of thinking than a single thermostat being switched on and off. OTOH, if we can't think, then this conversation and everything you're saying and "thinking" is meaningless.
So even without a complete definition of thought, we can see that there is a distinction.
> For example, you can't name the exact time that day becomes night, but it doesn't follow that there is no distinction.
There is actually a very detailed set of definitions of the multiple stages of twilight, including the last one which defines the onset of what everyone would agree is "night".
The fact that a phenomena shows a continuum by some metric does not mean that it is not possible to identify and label points along that continuum and attach meaning to them.
Your assertion that sodium channel logic and silicon trace logic are 100% identical is the primary problem. It's like claiming that a hydraulic cylinder and a bicep are 100% equivalent because they both lift things - they are not the same in any way.
People chronically get stuck in this pit. Math is substrate independent. If the process is physical (i.e. doesn't draw on magic) then it can be expressed with mathematics. If it can be expressed with mathematics, anything that does math can compute it.
The math is putting the crate up on the rack. The crate doesn't act any different based on how it got up there.
