A list of references just gives the a full information on everything that is actually a direct source of something in the text: a quotation, a statistic, a concept, whatever. I used a citation without quotes, for example, when I made use of someone’s interpretive insight into one of my texts, even though I put it in my own words.
But an author may do much broader reading than just the things he or she cites. I like to see a bibliography rather than just a list of references because it is going to branch out from the subject matter in various directions. Everything the author read as background for his or her work, all the research, all the things that provided context for the ideas and explored related avenues, would be listed in the bibliography. If I get interested in some aspect of the topic and want to pursue it, that’s where I’ll start.
If you were going to list the origin of all your thinking, you’d have to put your entire education in your bibliography. I bring my own knowledge and opinions to what I read, even though at some point I was introduced to them through someone else’s works. That is not plagiarism. An educated person is assumed to have absorbed some things, and they become his own. In writing my last paper, for instance, I made some assertions about the essential elements of fiction. I have been exposed to those basics since high school, have attended countless lectures and workshops and read articles and books over many decades. That information is mine and can be used in a critical analysis without my having to attribute it to anyone.