As for the options you give about the usefulness of folk psychology, I agree with the second one, about the sensorimotor loops and environmental manipulation. Of course that’s how we use our model of the personal self, to manipulate each other in our social interactions. The terms “belief,” “desire,” “meaning,” and so on work to that extent.Augh!
This isn't specifically in regards to Ben's comment. Here it is as well:
Language - To humans as picks are to thieves, minus the alarm system.And I think some of the arguing isn't about big evil corporations coming to control us or about some sort of cosmic aesthetic. It's from the other side of the perspective. Because I mean, who cares if the big evil corporation manipulates you if you are only ever manipulated or manipulate others?
— R. Scott Bakker (@TheDevilsChirp) April 17, 2014
The thing argued about, in part, is for something other than manipulation.
Taking on the second quotes analogy, that would be a key.
Let's take the boardgame analogy, so as to make this a bit more concrete and explicit (rather than trying to appeal purely to maybe some sort of feelings you have on the matter but are barely aware of and...yeah, as legit as that sounds)
In chess certain moves are valid. To use them is okay (well, assuming the other person has agreed to play!). They are a key, in other words - the right way to use the lock.
So you can argue alot in regards to biomachines manipulating biomachines. But to a certain degree there can be keys.
Ants have this thing where they will pass food onto each other with the right antennae strokes. Quick, they are manipulating each other! But then there's this beetle which can mimic the antennae strokes to get them to give it food...so which is the manipulation? Both, equally as much? Certainly the ant gets more back from giving to it's fellow ant than to the beetle. Certainly in Darwinistic terms it's genes/structure of life will continue onward.
Never mind what all the arguing is otherwise - or what this post is otherwise. It's hard to get at this subject because my guess is that, as said, it's about the other side of the perspective.
What's the point of saying language is a lockpick, unless you address the idea of a key - surely such a statement is just more lock picking then, isn't it? It picks the lock that stops others from picking other locks - most useful for a certain agenda.
Sans keys, it's just a theif who would lock out other thieves from his loot. No chess interaction, not even an ant ensuring something like him will be there in the future by its giving.
In the end I guess I am left trailing off in an appeal to that unseen/unseelie of the perspective.