Thoughts can be considered no more property than your body can. Interestingly this links nicely to the subject.
However thoughts are part of you. They change with you as does your physical self.
When you share a thought, you share a part of yourself, and your self.
You are truly free in the choice to share or not share this part of you with anything outside of yourself.

Are thoughts property?

But they are still your thoughts

Thoughts when, maintained by focus and attention, gain intensity and power much like a snowball starting an avalanche.
Ignored each individually thought is nothing.
How many random thoughts have popped into your head in your lifetime. How many do you remember? Make the bad thoughts one you forget.

Let me know how you get on
Like literally.
I will be awaiting a message :)
It is available on audible, I'm pretty sure they do a free 30 day trial, and you can cancel it and keep the free month

Hi I am certain that you have tried many self help books, but I would like to recommend 'The Awakened Ape: A Biohacker's Guide to Evolutionary Fitness, Natural Ecstasy, and Stress-Free Living' by Jevan Pradas.
It is an audio book that helped me greatly before I ever reached the suicidal point, but I believe it could be of help.
Everything in life is just an experience. This includes depression. Use this experience to grow.
Realise that you are not in complete control of your mind. If you were you wouldn't be depressed.
It is reasonable to assume then that these thoughts are not yours, and therefore it is necessary to distance them from your deliberate thoughts. They are not yours, and not your concern as it were.
In case too, then, this means suicidal thoughts and intentions are not yours and should be seen only as 'passers by'.
Acceptance of this starts regaining control of your mind, and your life. Bad days happen. That's ok. They are done. They have happened and can't be changed. Bad days will happen again, this is no reason to worry now. All this achieves is another bad day today. Be aware of your thoughts and where they come from.
Please listen to the book.

I am not, I suppose you could say nobody chooses to exist is more appropriate? I mean you personally do not make a free choice. The same with your physical looks (body mods aside).
My point was more that choice is denied, taking freedom with it.

But you are still completely free to imagine only what you can imagine. That cannot be controlled by any other person.

That's my point though I am asking you. You said you know. Tell me in deep, deep detail. Absolutes.
I never said knowledge 'is a distinctively human thing' I said information in the context of 'data', recorded data, recorded by humans.
Knowledge is teachable. Man teaches man to knit. Cheetah teaches cubs how to hunt.
A seed does not use knowledge to grow into a tree anymore than 2 gametes do to become a person. Or a cheetah.
Or Mentos do when reacting with cola.
Hydrogen is lighter than oxygen because be observe a heavy particle and said oxygen. We observed a less heavy particle and said hydrogen. We noticed hydrogen was less heavy than everything else we has observed. Neither one atom nor another knows it is heavy or less heavy, hydrogen or oxygen. It is data we have compiled from knowledge about our reality.
I am not tying to be a jerk however an really enjoy discourse and being challenged.

Before you were taught, could you knit?
Before you where told or saw it, did you know there even was a Mt. Everest, let alone how tall it was.
If you do know how, tell me how to digest complex foods, because I don't know. However even though I don't know, I can also.

I see where you are coming from, but surely knowledge is information
Artificial intelligence from a knowledge/intelligence perspective is not that indifferent to its living counterpart.
But in terms of the subject at hand to same principles apply.
All mediums that contain intelligence, knowledge or otherwise consume energy. We as organisms consume calories for example, and a computational server that contains and artificially intelligent algorithm consumes watts.
I am not (here) interested in the difference between organic life and intelligence. Just the idea between a 'difference [in] between the ability to perform a task based on stored information, that can be called knowledge, and the ability to perform work based on stored work, that can be called energy?'

Forgive me but all peoples since the dawn of what is considered human society have drawn 'lines' to mark territories.
This isn't an issue of freedom, as an individual is free to occupy a point in space and call it ' their space' this extends to a living space to sustain and support.

*edit: han to human...fat thumbs*

Not just what?

Why?
So smoking or not (in this case not ) my point is invalid....for what reason

Information is an invention of humankind in the sense we are discussing.
It is the name we give to sensual and mental processes.
All living things use information, it is just a question of how it is processed.
Conditioned reflexes are still based on information input.
Touching a hot surface does not result in (at least in the first instance) an internal debate about the intensity of the heat and whether or not to stop touching it. Instead you simply and instinctively retract your hand.
Similarly a bee takes sensual information about the location of pollen and sensually communicates it to fellow bees.
We can indeed 'use concept 'information' to describe the behavior of non-living matter' through machines but only in terms that we can comprehend. Machines are built to interpret data that we think is there, but we can't experience first hand. We then create a way to see what we think we will see.

Would that make my view any more or less valid?

Knowledge is, in its most reduced state energy reliant.
All knowledge is experiential.
Experience is a by-product of life.
Life requires energy.
Therefore to access knowledge requires work done, and the conversion of stored energy.
Conversion of stored energy is necessary for cultivation of knowledge. But knowledge is not the necessary outcome of converting stored energy.

No one can be truly free since no one chooses to be born. We are fettered by reality, and at least whilst we live; are unable to escape it.
In this way freedoms may be considered, debated confirmed and denied, all whilst at the same time being subordinate to something and never true freedoms.

Social freedoms in this sense then are artificial, invented by humans, and valued by humans alone.
Physical freedoms apply to anything that can experience its existence.

I live in a 'free' and democratic society, but I am not free to do as I wish with recompense, there are laws and consequences in place to try and prevent me from just this.
There are some things I am ' free' to do, but the since the line between your private and public life is blurred, and to some degree, with the invasive nature of social media, nonexistent. This means that if what I do in my private life enters the public sphere it is scrutinised and deemed 'allowable', 'tolerable', 'criminal' or other social qualia, whereby limits and consequences are imposed on your actions. In this way then your private life is also being scrutinised in case it strays into public life, and how any behaviors may be perceived.
This is not truly freedom.

Another degree of freedom denied to us is the way in which we experience the external world: I am free to experience the sensual world, however I am a slave to my senses. In considering that I am free to see, but only via the physical processes I possess, Bees can experience the ultraviolet for instance.
Whilst we can now make machines that allow us the see the ultra violet spectrum, we still only see what we think it would look like using a visible light spectrum representation, built through scientific methodology that is designed to create a way to find what you set out to find. We can never truly know what the ultraviolet looks like, only what we tell ourselves we think it looks like.

We can have societal freedoms extended to us, but these can be rescinded if we break certain rules, not necessarily of our choosing, therefore in social consideration one is only as free as your neighbors allow you to be.
In a physical sense one is only as free as reality allows, we cannot comprehend non-reality, and are therefore bound by reality.

This means that to me the only true freedom we can have is of the mind. Our deliberate thoughts. The monkey mind can be quietened and you can cultivate a peace in which your mind is free, endless and yours.

The act of eating meat, or other animal products is not, in my opinion, a question of ethics.
If it were fundamentally wrong then we would not be able to do it. If it were fundamentally right then we would not be able to explore an alternative choice. We as humans are living creatures just like animals, and indeed plants. All have a life, all have a death, all must experience suffering, be it pain in the case of animals or stresses when it comes to plants. This is a condition of life. Regardless of intensity, pain ceases at death alongside all other experience.
However, the way in which we treat our living neighbors is really the only point where ethics matters.
So long as true loving kindness is shown to all living things in life, then what is done after death is irrelevant.
The act of killing an another for sustenance is natural throughout the natural kingdom, including in the plant kingdom, and therefore does not fall into the realm of ethics. To say that as humans we have evolved beyond the necessity to consume animals is to say the as humans we evolved beyond nature. The way in which we have industrialised animals, however, is ethically questionable.