IP is fundamentally different from property as me know it.
Something is your property if you have exclusive control over it. Since IP is not exclusive (two people can have the same thought), it is not property.
Patents are the worse form of IP, since it is possible to accidentally infringe on them.
Copyright is almost as bad, especially at current timespans, and because it has such a chilling effect on the internet and other media.
Trademarks are essentially just defenses from fraud, so they aren't really IP.
As gowld already pointed out, the distinction between traditional property and "intellectual property" is not as strong as it is often painted.
I would say for the larger part, the exclusivity in both is artificial. As gowld points out, for many physical things there exist fair sharing schemes. And historically, when public lands were enclosured to become private property, it was an artificial process which explicitly created the exclusion. This exclusion wasn't needed from economic point of view.
If I hang out in your house and borrow your computer when you aren't home, I'm not depriving you of anything. Yet your property rights can be wielded against me. Why?
Something is your property if you have exclusive control over it. Since IP is not exclusive (two people can have the same thought), it is not property.
Patents are the worse form of IP, since it is possible to accidentally infringe on them.
Copyright is almost as bad, especially at current timespans, and because it has such a chilling effect on the internet and other media.
Trademarks are essentially just defenses from fraud, so they aren't really IP.