Yes, but not to understand or think about the world. In this case, writing was to express something, not to understand something. The overall point is that claiming that "human writing = human thinking" is too broad a general statement to make seriously.

> The overall point is that claiming that "human writing = human thinking" is too broad a general statement to make seriously.

Do you have any non-contrived example of writing that was done with zero thought?

That's what I am saying, zero thoughts is not possible unless you define what thoughts/thinking are you referring too.

Of course you cannot do anything without like basic thought otherwise you will not be able to do anything.

So I am not sure what you mean by non-contrived? It has to be contrived because we are talking specifics like I said.

If thinking = consiousness then yes you cannot write without being consious. But if thinking = having complex logical thoughts and writing about them then I would say yes it is possible to write without that.

My only claim is that just because you are writing something doesn't automatically mean you are having complex thoughts about what you are writing. So writing = thinking doesn't sit right. I can tell you i often just mindlessly write words on my journal sometimes but that is also a contrived example. Yet the existence of the example is the point. You cannot categorically claim something if exceptions (no matter how contrived) can be raised.