Objective purpose and buckets of water

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Objects or natures that have been “shaped” by an artificail inteligence for some particular end exist. Socks, on the other hand, do not exist.

I think that adresses your points perfectly.

OK. Thanks for the effort.

Correct me if I am misreading, but some questions arise.

If an axe (or samurai sword, I presume) exists and would be recognized as an artificial object with a particular end (cutting tool or weapon), why wouldn’t a sock? Hasn’t a sock been shaped by shearing a sheep, making wool yarn, and knitting for a particular end? Minimally it would be recognized as an artificial object. But artificial objects are made for some purpose. An alien visitor would seek to find the purpose, if it is not immediately apparent, as we do for early artifacts. They would give it a name.

Wouldn’t an artificial heart (a working assembly) be in the above category? It has the same function/teleology as a natural heart.

And what about a prehistoric cave painting? Is its objective existence nothing but pigment stains? Or would you put in under objects or natures that have been shaped for a purpose? I.e, for communication.

IOW, when it comes to man-made objects, where do you draw the line? In your thinking what is the specific difference that differentiates “existing” from “non-existing”?

Also when it comes to natural objects, where do you draw the line? The whole organism (a substance) has a inherent teleology, but so do most of the parts (not substances) like the heart or DNA.

The line doesn’t seem to be:

(a) substance versus non-substance (tree versus wooden oar or carved statue);

(b) whole versus part (organism versus heart or DNA);

(c) natural versus man-made (stone versus axe or bread).