I get your point. But I sort of didn't want to take this type of tangient because it somewhat gets more complicated depending on the definition of 'think'. Taking it in the general meaning of the work, coffee makers think as well. The analogy of computers being more complex is true and can be applied to humans being more complex than fish. But wedon't say that fish do not think. I only use this counter-example because fish have brain cells and respond to and interact with their environment. Their is an environmental stimulus (input) and a response (output) whether physical or mental.

"A computer can process information and to some extent adapt to its surroundings, but is it fundamentally different from the coffee maker? Isn't it basically the same kind of thing, only more complex, whereas living organisms are fundamentally different kinds of things?"

Fundamentally, a computer is no different from a coffee-maker. Fundamentally, a human is no different from dog or cat when it comes down to simple "thought" based on the neurophysiology of our brains. Now I am not a physicialist nor a mentaist. I believe in dualism. Better yet, imagine a baby. We know they think, or we take it to be true. But their behavior is all but similar to that of computer producing behavioral output that we use to figure out what they are thinking or experiencing (input). It would be cynical to think that babies don't think even though practically all of their behaviors are instinctual. Even later, during up-bringing, molding their behavior is a form of programming. If we were able to produce an automatonon programmed to respond like a baby and placed it next to a real one, their would be no way to discern one from the other.

Upon reading your response, one thing ultimately stood out. AI. Now I am assuming you accept that if we had AI, then computers with AI do think. But why would computers without it not think? THE fundamental difference between humans (and I restrain from saying living organisms, becuase an argument can be made that all living organisms do not think) and computers is the idea of sentience. The idea of self-consciousness. People are quick to say that computers don't 'think' because, inherently, there is no thought processes that take place within a CPU that we normally can compare to the human experience.

If we are asked a question that we already know the answer to we reply as would a computer. But is our response one of thought, regurgitation, or both. If we didn't know the answer, we could venture a guess from present knowledge, but a computer would be dumb-founded because said answer would not exist in its library.
Does thin inability to extrapolate mean that it can't think? If so, do we need to then re-define the term think to include the idea of extrapolation? What if the computer replied I don't know as people (and I know I am) are afraid to admit sometimes? Then once again, we are at apass where there can be no discernable difference between a thinking thing and a non-thinking interactive thing.

The one step further is the ability to teach one's self. Is this the pinnacle of thought, or is it a requirement for it? Humans, once we reach a certain age, we can teach ourselves. The idea of AI is to build a machine that not only has programmming that is was designed with, but has the ability to "expand it's own program" to exceed that from which it had when it was first turned on. But without that ability, it is no different from a child who can't teach himself anything. And in this respect, of course anything learned is limited to book-type knowledge as a child can easily teach himself that fire is hot. But that is more of an instinctual reponse to a noxious stimulus from the environment. Or better, the child is 'hard-wired', bother literally and metaphorically, to act accordingly and remember what he learned.

Computers think, but they do no have the ability to teach themelves, nor ascertain a solution that they had not previously been given the answerto or prgramming as to find out that answer. Their lack of sentience does not preclude them from thinking, it's just a different typeof 'processing'.

-Sweet