If something moves from A to B, it of course, does not mean that that was its aim. Aim has something to do with internal forces that compels something to act in a certain way. So I can say 'aim' is a certain force of nature that compels things from within. Aim is a potential energy. The actual manifestation is a kinetic energy.

Now when you say 'I aim at making a chair', what exactly do you mean? How do we define an aimless event in contrast with an aimed one? If you aimed at making a chair, we can say that the chair somehow exists in your mind before you make one. This will drive you to select the typems of events that can bring about the chair, from the ocean of events that will not serve such a goal. So 'creating it in the mind', seems to be the first step in 'aiming'. But there are still more steps to go since 'creating a chair in the mind' is actually 'imagination' of one, and imagination of course does not mean the same thing as 'aiming'. There can be an imagination of a chair in your head, and even with all the processes of how to make a chair, but this does not mean that you have any aim of making a chair. So what is an 'aim'.?

Part of my aim (pun not intended) here is to close examine if 'aim' can fundamentally be in nature. In modern science, there is an attempt to depict natural phenomena as 'aimless', and so the brain must be an ensemble of aimless events! So in this view, there must be a way in which a combination of aimless events scan aim! That is to say each event is aimless but the overal combination of the events has an aim! I don't like this approach because if a macroscopic object moves, then all of its particles moves together so each particle must be capable of moving, if the entire ensemble can move. So if an ensemble of particles can aim, then each particle must contribute to the aim. So each particle must be performing a 'portion of aim'.

We also must use a more objective criteria to observe an 'aim' taking place. In so doing, we momentarily treat the 'aiming' the way a modern cognitive neuro scientist may treat it: as something that can be tracked by close examining the brain from without. At what point will the cognitive neuroscientist say 'behold the brain is aiming'? How does he define 'aim' in such a way that he can observe something 'aiming' from without? As far as I know, they have never made such a definition! So scientist's insistence that 'natural phenomena is aimless', means little in objective sense. They are invorking a term, 'aim' that they cannot illustrate what it means as observed from without! How does a particle that moves from A to B with an aim of moving from A to B differ from a particle that moves from A to B without any aim of moving from A to B?

To define such a criteria, we can begine by examining how we know that other people, apart from ourselves, can also aim. So we can, for instance, say that we know that someone can aim because he can say 'I want to hit that target' before he throws a stone. So the person can give us information that helps us to guess the probability of him throwing a stone and hitting something specific. So the first step is: if we can get the information that helps us find the probability that an object will get from A to B, then this information can come from the aim of the object to get from A to B. So 'aim to do x' is correlated to the presence of the information pertaining to 'doing x', before the actual 'doing of x' takes place. In other words if something aims at doing x, it becomes likelier for the thing to do x.

So one way we can examine if particles can aim to move from A to B is to see if we can tell the probability of them doing so, before they do so! But note that this must not be a probability entirely created by external factors. In must be created by factors inherent within the particle. I can predict that you will move from A to B but because I saw a bulldozer behind you, going towards B and I can see the likelihood that it will sweep you to B! That was not your aim. But if the information 'i want to go to B' comes from within you, then that is your Aim. But we must also not factor out the INFLUENCE of the bulldozer. If you saw the bulldozer comming, you can quickly begine to aim to move away from the road. So we must differentiate 'being moved by x' and 'moving in response to x'. In the latter, the object uses its own internal energy to move while in the former, it uses the energy of x.

Can we see such things even in subatomic particles? Now in quantum mechanics, one can find the probability of a particle moving from A to B, and the enviroment can manipulate the so called wave. The wave influences the probability of a particle moving from A to B but it does not provide the energy. So one might say that the particle moves IN RESPONSE to the wave. This is especially true in the case of the so called 'pilot-wave' model. Now when two or more particles interacts, especially to combine and form a single atom or molecule, there internal 'randomnesses' creates a resultant, ever changing wave. This wave in turn influences where the very particles will move to. Therefore since the ensemble of particles creates an information that influence their next position before they can move there, we can say that the particles (strictly seen as one) indeed first 'aim' to get from A to B before they actually get there!

We can then understand the aiming of a larger ensemble, e.g. the brain. If each particle has an ability to aim to move from A to B, then collection of particles in your brain will manifest 'aiming' when all the quantum particles have synchronized their aims! A rock doesn't seem to have any aim because each of the different particles forming the rock has its own aim. One might aim to go to north, another one aims to go to north, another one west etc etc. The resultant effect, in sum total is what appears as an aimless stone!