Nota bene: English isn't my native language, so when I say acts of the human mind, I attempt to generalize things such as making assumptions, drawing conclusions and (to some extent) to reject.
To me it seems this isn't identical to anthropomorphism, but close to it, or a subset of it. In the Swedish Wikipedia article on anthropomorphism they make a distinction between an entity looking like a human being ("physical anthropomorphism") and having a "human-like spiritual life" ("psychological anthropomorphism"). The latter comes even closer, but to me, it still isn't quite there because of the ambiguity in the notion of someone or something having a "spiritual life".
An example: in one of my school courses, students were criticized by the teacher for including statements such as
Ultimately, our article draws the conclusion that X and Y is Z.
in their articles; the error being that such a statement communicates that the article itself is capable of drawing conclusions as if it were human, or otherwise capable of thinking and reasoning.
Another example: sometimes when writing computer programs, I write things like
the function assumes that the argument n is an integer
in the comments; with this I'm implying (to myself, at any rate!) that if you call the function with a value for n that is anything but an integer, any return values are "bogus" and/or the program stops working correctly. But can a function assume things? In my opinion, not really. On a different note, if anyone else needs to read my code, I'd have to at least further specify what happens when n isn't an integer, but more importantly (to the subject at hand) choose a more proper wording than "the function assumes this and that".
The Swedish noun själsliv (a compound of själ and liv) used in the aforementioned Wikipedia article translates to "spiritual life" according to Google Translate, but a more literal translation is "soul-life", or perhaps "mind-life", and with the latter I think it's reasonable to call this "psychological anthropomorphism".
I notice there's some overlap with Can a non-human “reason” in the sense of inferring. One of the examples from that question entry is
The folk singer's soothing music breathed peacefulness into the cafe.
Now, the music itself can't breathe, obviously, but few English speakers would not interpret this as a metaphor. But when it comes to functions and articles assuming things or drawing conclusions, is it ever "OK", even in an informal sense?