I’m not directly representing or misrepresenting your argument.
I am arguing my primary argument which is in regard to human nature, which is a determinist stance.
I’m willing to accept a determinist stance in a very narrow, precise fashion.
You had been arguing a determinist stance that I _might_ accept if it was precise enough.
If a determinist stance is too broad and too strong, such as: “greed, brutality and domination is human nature”, then I won’t accept a determinist position and will bring up various choice/decision/mutable/environmental things.
If a determinist stance is too vague or general such as “any human characteristic is human nature”, I can accept that in principle as a starting point but not as as final answer unless it’s serious, which is why I brought up rationalism-as-human-nature and cat-rape-as-human-nature as a “sniff test”.
As you did NOT consider those acceptable examples of human nature, I moved to individual differences in people and I brought myself in as an example because I had relevant recent knowledge.
Now you are at “Character is Fate” and that is a good place to pause and reflect as that has a narrow enough focus (individual without necessarily calling to individualism as it can also apply in societies which are not individualistic as it brings up character, which can be a shared trope).
and that would leave me with fate. I’ll pause on that but I wanted you to see the thrust of where I was coming from.
I do not think my criteria is emotional in nature but I can’t promise that and I don’t know how well I can represent your argument back to you as I was not directly addressing your argument too many times, which was a related issue but a tangent to what I considered a sloppy determinism (that greed, brutality and domination is human nature)
interesting: I can’t say I fully comprehend what representational drift is as it’s the first I’ve heard of it. But the olfactory system is “wired directly” and does not go though the ‘relay center’ of the thalamus, unlike all the others.
“The olfactory system is unique compared to the other senses in that, among other things, information is not relayed via the thalamus, but instead projected directly to cortical regions such as the orbitofrontal cortex.”
Alas, I don’t resonate too much with that quote but I’ll try. Lying is a rational survival skill that we learn early or is built in (your choice).
I don’t see speech as built for lying but for clarification of a needs expression.
Words start off with VERY complex, multidimensional meaning.
“Mommy!” means a LOT of things to a toddler and interpreting it is fraught with problems.
Learning the native grammar in use, mastering the native language, knowing hundreds of thousands of categories by the age of 7… while it is in service of lying a lot (look at the fiction section of a library – we love lying in escapism) – it is also in the service of truth.