I don't disagree with you. My entire point is that "play" isn't a thing. It's a behavior we can point to and categorize, but it shouldn't be defined by some pos

I don't disagree with you. My entire point is that "play" isn't a thing. It's a behavior we can point to and categorize, but it shouldn't be defined by some post-hoc function. That's a teleological view applied to natural phenomena. The behavioral pattern exists. It's obviously instinctual. It may exist for a variety of functions, both currently important to human evolution or as a vestige from a previous era. The my entire point is that "play" again, is a social construction placed on top of a observed behavioral pattern.