I appreciate the feedback, and there is a lot of truth to this. It is difficult to speak about anything without introducing a purpose that drives it. Even if you break down a high level purpose into functional pieces, you have to stop the regress at some point and introduce an abstraction (e.g. pistons in a car). Perhaps one clarification is that this post denies the utility of purpose, not the purpose of purpose, and only does so at the highest levels.

An analogy is Legos - it would be restrictive to say a Lego set has a purpose (the core model in the instructions). We should rather treat it as a pile of pieces with inherent restrictions, from which you can build anything you want. It is a ground-up rather than top-down approach. This allows us to avoid pigeon-holing the mind. For example, it is difficult to explain art creation with reference to a high level purpose (e.g. beauty), since every time you introduce one some artist undermines it just to spite you (e.g. intentionally ugly art). But if you instead look at the functions that are playing out - e.g. someone wanted to create beautiful art to create enjoyment for others, then another person wanted to undermine popular social sentiment about art to prevent it from becoming stale and obsolete - then all "purposes" can be accommodated.