Circumscription: who or what "thinks"

One way to begin clarifying any concept is by identifying a boundary within which the concept lies. This process is called "circumscription". In a hierarchy of concepts, you can circumscribe a concept by identifying the more general category to which it belongs (thus a "lion" is a species of "big cat") or by enumerating the more particular categories that the concept comprises (thus the "cat" family comprises "big cats" and "small cats").

In stating that "thinking" is a "process" I am beginning this sort of definition process. It is customary to qualify "thinking" further by defining it as a "mental" process, but there is no need to suppose a priori that only "minds" can think or, indeed, that minds only think. We may not be surprised to arrive at this conclusion, but for the time being let's just consider who or what might legitimately be described as engaged in the process of thinking.

The only thinking that I'm familiar with is animal. In saying this, I'm not asserting that there is, for example, no botanical thinking (although I doubt that there is), nor am I expressing scepticism about artificial intelligence, divine intelligence or extra-terrestrial intelligence (just that I am not aware of having any experience of these). The question is: Is "thinking" the exclusive preserve of animate beings?

I think the answer is yes. If there were compelling evidence that Mount Kilimanjaro, say, could think, then I imagine I would be forced to conclude that Mount Kilimanjaro is an animate being! Of course, I appreciate that there is a circular argument here. But this corresponds to the limits of my imagination. For although life without thinking seems highly plausible, thinking without "life" does not. So that if thinking occurs where there is no (other) sign of life, it seems it would be my understanding of "life" that would need to change, not my understanding of thinking.

That's enough philosophising for now. Two questions I'll leave open for the time being: Do communities or organisations "think"? What about (assuming their existence for the sake of argument) God or gods?