We don't know yet. But we do know it's certainly not statistical token prediction.
(People can do statistical token prediction too, but that's called "bullshitting", not "thinking". Thinking is a much wider class of activity.)
Do we know that with certainty? Do we actually?
Because my understanding is that how "thinking" works is actually still a total mystery. How is it we no for certain that the basis for the analog electric-potential-based computing done by neurons is not based on statistical prediction?
Do we have actual evidence of that, or are you just doing "statistical token prediction" yourself?
You’re reversing the burden of proof in a similar manner as religious people often do. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and so on.
I'm not reversing it lol. You're the one making a claim, the burden of evidence is on you.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is still absence of evidence. Making a claim without any is more religious that not. After all, we know humans can't be descended from monkeys!