Well I suppose it's a start - it's probably better than not thinking at all.
Is it?
You don't sound all that certain, redbaron. I wouldn't be either.
What causes thinking? Is it happiness, satisfaction, or, in general, things working out as they are supposed to? Or is it, rather, unhappiness, dissatisfaction, loneliness, and things not working out as they are supposed to? Is this a false dichotomy? (Why is the villain always the smart one (that is, one that thinks)? Isn't it because she doesn't consider herself beautiful enough, or that he doesn't consider himself virtuous enough no matter how much he'd like to?)
Aphorism: With thought, problem was brought into being.
Or is it: With problem, thought was brought into being.
Is there any problem separate from us? Say, if our earth suddenly would no longer sustain life, is that a real (as in considered separate from our thinking) problem?
And may I remind you, and myself, of Hume's fact value distinction (is ought etc.), or the standard issue of the percipience vs the persipi, or the phenomena vs the noumena, or subject vs object.
With regards to the topic at hand again. If what we think has any reality (and it does!), then we can grant a vast amount of possibilities, especially if thinking can be used to reframe experience (which, I believe, it can!). Perhaps I might even become the queen of england, though in a different sense. But the squared circle and other logical impossibilities we still cannot grant because, at least to my ability, I can't even comprehend them, or picture them in my mind. My imagined squared circle just turns out to be a continual passing from square to circle, and from circle to square, or both of them on top of each other, so it doesn't even get the reality of being in my mind. This, in contrast to some where being the queen of england takes on a reality by it existing in their mind.