So it's really information , and not a chair? But at the same time it is a chair?

Can't it really be a chair, and (assuming your comments about CERN are correct...) really be information and energy? — Banno

We can call it a chair, or we can call it a stool, or we can call it firewood - my wife calls it an eyesore, but it will always be information and energy. So what is the reality of what it is? Which of those realities that it can assume / be put to, is its reality - I think the constituent one is information and energy - it will never cease to be this.

Can you give a clear answer - if it is energy and information, does that mean it is not a chair? — Banno

Of course it is a chair Banno. But fundamentally it is made of the same stuff as you and me. If you want to engage with reality you have to reconcile that fact.

Yeah, we are nothing but that. :up: Its not such a bad thing to be?

Or do you think that CERN results mean that the chair on which you sit is not real? — Banno

It is a chair now, before that it was a tree, before that it was dirt, before that it was rock, lava, etc. But it will always be information and energy.

Suppose you had a "finest grain of reality measure" on the end of a stick, and you pocked everything with it and you found everything you poked is made of the same stuff, including yourself! Suppose this stuff was cheese :smile: and suppose somebody came along and started to tell you that reality is made of chocolate cake! Wouldn't you think this person was somewhat out of touch with reality, given you cant make chocolate cake with cheese? And after you explained this to them they still maintained chocolate was the fundamental stuff, would it be reasonable to think this person willfully ignorant?

We have a “finest grain of reality measure” at CERN. 51 Hedrons and counting it is still finding particles with mass, but the smart money is on a Wavicle of sorts . It seems assured given E=mc2.
This would mean energy and information is the fundamental stuff. You , me, J.L Austin, and all of his thoughts and works, including everything else is made of information and energy – the same stuff we exchange right now at this very moment as we converse. I wonder how you would reconcile your paradigm with that?


Physics based understanding is initially difficult and tedious. I can relate to your aversion. But towards the end of the tunnel, the light is particularly bright. If information and energy is fundamental, then we are made of information and energy. When we die the information is not preserved, but the energy is! It goes on to create other form. I would ask anybody – what do they feel themselves to be – the information? or the energy? :chin:

I would like to point out that in phenomenology it is the feeling that creates reality. When information is integrated and a corresponding feeling is felt, we have an experience - this we understand to be reality. So what is your feeling, what are you truly - are you the information, or the energy? :smile:

Ex. when a very high magnet field produce electric current by itself.Or energies that can evolve and transform into another type of energy just by increasing their frequency. — Adughep

Grrr - :angry: Physics is not my strong point - I have a lot of catching up to do!

So we can keep the information we gather during the day.
So we wont overload with too much information, and destroy our organized cells. — Adughep

This sounds reasonable. I was thinking sleep allows new structure to be built around consolidated information, which becomes physical structure somehow, such that it has new pathways to grow. The way you characterize it would seem to work also.

We might need another chemical structure beside "water" to be able to store more information and live longer. — Adughep

Ok, I'm having another look at water memory and I have found this. Water memory is a very big deal. It would entail the recalibration of an awful lot of theory, so its no surprise it has met a lot of resistance. I'm open minded though, and I note a few people have found there is something to it, so will keep looking.

You can take "information" by colliding with a car, but that wont be pleasant for us or the living cells inside us. — Adughep

Yes, this would be chaos ( too much energy / information) - no chance for information to self organize. Order is necessary.
The Dictionary definition of order is: the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method. So order is self organization. We recognize order by noticing a self organization occurring. And this can only occur in pockets of the universe that have the right energy states. In those states the energy starts ordering ( self organizing ).
The right information has to be present ( the right elements ) for the ordering to continue.

We might need another chemical structure beside "water" to be able to store more information and live longer.
That will be another complex and interesting discussion. — Adughep

Do you have some good references?

BTW, thanks for your information. I was thinking of energy as a substance and couldn't quite put it together, but upon thinking of it as particles ( wavicles ), due to your prompts, it just clicked. :up:

They 'kind of' exist, which is a very inconvenient truth for materialism. — Wayfarer

Yes we can safely rule out materials, imo.

Mind will always be in the picture, we are not going to conceive it mindlessly. :lol:

CERN were supposed to answer this for us, but they are still smashing particles.

It's all waves man. — Tom Storm

:up: Self organized waves man. Made of energy and information - Wavicles, Quantum fields, strings?

↪Jack Cummins No. — Wayfarer

Lets see how cryptic we can be? :smile:

Its not solid.
Its mind dependent.
What is its finest grain?

Thanks for the link. However I noticed nothing new. Still its always interesting to see dualists tangling themselves up in their paradigm.

“Out there, in front of your eyes, there is just an ocean of electromagnetic radiation, a wild and raging mixture of different wavelengths” (Metzinger 2009: 20)

They rightly construe the external world as energetic fluctuation and vibration, but, it seems, they forget to construe themselves as something of the sort. In my understanding we are an entangled construction of energetic frequency and vibration. When external energetic frequency and vibration meets with us, it is the most natural union possible! It is a one to one connection. It is a like with like interaction, and modulation.

The frequency and vibrations are converted to anthropocentric symbols, the symbols are related ( neural network style ), and a big anthropocentric picture is constructed.

The symbology is doing the heavy lifting. It is translating energetic frequency and vibrations to a symbol understood by a socially constructed anthropocentric paradigm, or something of the sort. So mind dependent for sure, but, I believe, the Chinese whisper is occurring in consciousness from patterns of energy to paradigm, not from external world to consciousness. Which puts a slightly different twist on the argument. :smile: in contrast to the below:

"Helmholtz found an important source of inspiration for this claim in the work of the physiologist
Johannes Müller, who had claimed that the properties of the external causes are not transmitted in a
faithful and accurate manner to consciousness by our nerves. Indeed, so many intermediary steps and
transformations occur on the way between the external cause and the experienced effect that any
similarity or resemblance between the two can safely be ruled out. "

If you want to say that the thing in itself is an evolving process that co-evolves with us in inextricable fashion , then I would agree. — Joshs

:up: I agree. It is not a one way street. All natural objects are self organizing in relation to each other, in an evolving process. Self organization is ubiquitous!

It means self organization ( consciousness ) is the thing causing a differentiated self, where all naturally integrated objects are differentiated selves. I even suspect phenomenology is relevant to all such objects , but I haven't fully articulated that argument - yet! :smile:

Thanks for the link, Ill check it out later.

Is there instead in each case only what appears to me in the mode in which it appears to me and nothing behind it, no thing-in-itself? — Joshs

No, I think the relational nature of the universe would exclude such a view (epistemic solipsism). There is a thing in itself, but we have no direct access to it, needing to conceptually construct the thing in terms of the information we have about it ( idealism ). We get closer and closer to the thing in itself but can never have perfect understanding, perhaps because the thing in itself is an evolving process, as are we.

Is there a Consciousness in General?

Or does consciousness always only occur, or exist, from a given frame-of-reference, from a particular point-of-view or perspective?

That is, must consciousness always only occur, or exist, in a first person, present tense mode?

And if only the latter is the case, then why is it the case?/quote] — charles ferraro

Consciousness is an evolving process of self organization. In the process of integrating external information, and conceiving a world view ( status quo ), it also adjusts and aligns a self in relation to that information. So the process is self creating. It is principally self interested.

To put it another way, consciousness is not about arbitrarily integrating external information ( the objects of experience ), but about resolving how that information relates to self. This is where phenomenology comes in; cognition is disruptive to self ( Capra ), but there is an inbuilt bias to integrate, so consciousness must find a solution that reestablishes integrity, in order to maintain the self as much as possible.

What is it about consciousness that it must always be personified, or require personhood? — charles ferraro

This is very anthropocentric. All natural objects are an evolving process of self organization.

Perhaps it's true: each I is simply a facet in its means for the universe (God?) to behold itself. :eyes: — 180 Proof

:up: I think its something like that. I could go on, in various ways, for a long time, but it would all be off topic. :smile:

It is a common mistake that I often make myself. I mentioned it as I think this way leads to a better paradigm: If God = Universe, and I = Universe, then I = God. :smile: At one extreme such a paradigm might land one in a nut house, but at the other extreme god becomes only as omnipotent as we are. Which raises the question - how omnipotent is that? I think the most powerful thing in the world is an idea / concept. It is through these as belief systems that we partake in the world. These can change the world. All ideas and concepts are man made, including god! So in this sense we are indeed omnipotent gods.

I didn't mean to turn this into a sermon. I'm just relating how it pans out in my mind.

I think God is The Universe - from which we all are created, the cosmos, the planets, the stars, every life form that has ever existed. The very thing that gives us the fuel of existence and the very thing we turn to after death. The endless, infinite cycle of creation and destruction. — SupernovaGirl

I think that is an excellent definition of god, except for the part: "the very thing we turn to after death" - that is not really logical, as it implies that in life we are not part of the universe?

I think when speaking of a god it is important to provide a definition, as god is likely to be a slightly different concept in everyone's mind, so thank you for doing so.

'Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?’ - ‘No Reason’

The reason something exists is because of the information we have about it.

Nothing, on the other hand, is a hypothetical , that provides no information, can not provide any information, and in this way can not exist..

Things exist as a function of the information we have about them. There may be many "Nothings" that we have no information about, and should they someday reveal some information to us, then they will become somethings. They will become the things that the information conveys.

From my point of view everything you : see, hear or touch is energy.
A rock ( something you can touch or an object that has mass) is still just another energy that function on a different wavelength, then the wavelength of sound, light or magnetic.

That's why i think the human cells or any other living cells are just energy interactions + the information that resulted from those interactions. — Adughep

:100: I think you are right! It leads to a string theory like paradigm. Not necessarily strings, but particles of energy in combination forming structure.

If we call them strings, then one string interacts with another string, and the interaction modulates the frequency of both strings such that a third, now combined and modulated string emerges. The resultant modulated string is symbolic of the initial interaction. That's how information is preserved. That’s how consciousness begins! Subsequently these symbols are again integrated through further interaction. That’s how self organization occurs! Ultimately this leads to a neural network type of situation where combination builds symbolic complexity, as material structure. Information is preserved in a creative emergent manner, and symbolized in the emergent form of the resulting strings.

** In such a paradigm, neurobiology is the process of converting energetic frequency and vibration to symbols ( pattern recognition ), and then relating the symbols. In the end, the symbols in combination create a big picture we call consciousness. Much like the pixels of a computer screen only in 3D.

This theory of consciousness badly needs updating but I just don't have the time at present. I'm glad I called consciousness an evolving process! :smile:

In systems and complexity theory, self organization begins with arbitrary fluctuations of energy. At least that is currently the deepest possible insight. What is brushed over is that these energetic fluctuations are in themselves self organizing ( they interact and integrate ). It seems they are self organizing from the outset? How would you explain their self organization? Tell me more please?

Energy on its own we know nothing about. But energy that has frequency or vibration is energy + information, in my understanding. A certain pattern of energetic frequency or vibration is symbolized in consciousness, perhaps by a neuron, but certainly by a concept, and then is related to other concepts or neurons - and that would be how consciousness occurs, as far as I can see. In this way, If we could strip away these anthropocentric concepts (symbols) all there would be left would be patterns of fluctuating and vibrating energy. Is this roughly what you mean?

I came upon self organization in my own quirky way ( long story ). Jantsch is the originator, I haven’t read the book, but it is a well established concept in systems, and complexity theory. Currently Neil Theise is the loudest exponent. It caught my eye in abiogenesis theory, they all posit self organization as the cause of life, even God would have to self organize / self create to come into existence. :smile: You have done an excellent job of describing it. As you can see it is fundamental and thus ubiquitous. And it seems to fit as the cause and function of consciousness: “ I think therefore I am”, reduces down to” I am consciousness”. Consciousness is tricky to define as it is endlessly variable and open ended, but it can be defined in terms of its cause and function. So I am consciousness, with a little qualification becomes “I am an evolving process of self organization”.

I arrived at this about a year ago, and have been testing it ever since. It seems to work? My interest is phenomenology, psychology, belief systems etc, this big picture stuff is a little out of my league, but self organization is a concept I cant seem to let go of and want to see through in my own way. It is an extremely powerful concept in many ways, but most of all in that it seems to be a link between consciousness and a fundamental attribute of our universe, and this impression leads me to a panpsychic understanding.

It is a concept normally used in systems and complexity theory , as you have outlined. I use it out of that context, to test it. We can define consciousness as self organization, but we cannot define self organization ( due to it being fundamental ). The best I can do is state that organization creates a self. It hasn’t been applied to phenomenology or psychology, as far as I am aware, so I am keen to see how it might fit. I think the above expression works? A self is self organizing.

It is still a work in progress. Once I have integrated it, I will compare my notes with that of others, including Jantz, but in the meantime I don’t in the hope that my personal understanding might result in something novel.


I mean singularity in a colloquial sense. Solipsism implies a mind in a vat type of situation : “solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind” - WIKI. As you say, this is a Cartesian dualist concern. I can relate to the fear of solipsism as I grew up in such a setting. These days, as a monist, I see things as systems and evolving relational processes, so such impressions are no longer relevant. As above – I am an evolving process of self organization – I can not be certain of anything! :lol: But seriously, I think this is closer to the truth.


** In short yes , I think everything is mind dependent, but consciousness is a mental modeling of an external world ( composed almost entirely of external information ), so Solipsism in its extreme ( mind in a vat ) doesn't make sense to me. A highly idealistic reality sounds more apt.

The point of the list was to show a universal principal or mechanism at work. — Mark Nyquist

Perhaps another time. :up: What strikes me about your Venn diagram idea is that the outer circle must always be mind dependent - it has no other way of materializing - both literally, and figuratively, both in the diagram and in the real world, from an idealistic perspective.

I think we come closer to truth when we seek out such things that others steer clear of, if we instead of deliberately overlook, then decide to peer through the depths. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

The allure of these depths is hard to resist. It is what makes philosophy exciting, as there is an element of risk to it. :naughty: I don't think its ultimately solipsistic. Solipsism suggests a singularity, whereas the universe is fundamentally relational. Self organization tends toward a singularity, but never manages to achieve it - always remaining an evolving process. I would say the nucleus of self organization is empty - there is no enduring self. The self evolves and emerges. A self is created entirely of non self. The relationship of self and other ( externalities ) is the gap they both emerge into - the relationship being the basis of emergence and evolution. So, this would exclude solipsism for me, but of course it is highly idealistic.

My broad impression is of a stuff that differentiates for a time ( our lifetime ) and then recombines only to differentiate as something else at a future time. Something like a whirlpool that forms for a time in a fast flowing stream, or a fluctuation created from fluctuations. What are your thoughts?

Yes, It comes to us as energetic frequency and vibration, that is integrated as information in consciousness, via neurobiology.
Either we cannot experience it, or what we experience is all there is, all that can be, and so what there is is not a singular thing, but just many different interpretations of it.

I can not say I like it, but that's where the logic seems to lead.

Edit; Yogic logic also ends in consciousness / panpsychism.

There is quite a gulf to be bridged. You posit a mind independent world ( "First start with a large circle that contains all physical matter existing in the present"). Please read this thread, and explain to me how such a world could exist. If you come to understand that it cannot, as I do, then you will also understand that according to your list, the world is a "non physical", so, from my perspective, there is quite a conundrum to unravel and put back together before we can reach an understanding.

Subjectivity doesn’t just organize and categorize data from an presumed independent world. The subject co-creates the object.
— Joshs

I agree with you fundamentally here. Most, if not all the properties associated with an object (as we experience it) are perceptually constructed and cannot belong to an object in itself independent of perception. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

If we take this to its logical conclusion, it means there is no consciousness independent world. It would suggest consciousness ( as self organization ) is fundamental. ultimate , and everything in between. This relates to the fine tuning of the universe argument, in that the universe is fine tuned to self organize. Change the laws of physics just a little and things cold not self organize, they could not integrate. In such a universe information could not be integrated, consciousness could not exist, and for all intents and purposes neither could the universe. Any thoughts?

I am curious as to why you doubt that I would accept such a statement. It seems to be the case to me. What have I said to make you think otherwise? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Actually I thought we were fairly close, hence my paraphrasing. I think you put it quite well in your reply to Constance. In short, morality is a function of self organization, where the preservation and continuation of self is the main issue at play, where consciousness is an evolving process of self organization, where the self evolves in line with the self organization that is achieved. Morality being a self interested expression / reflection of the state of self organization achieved at any given time.

the philosophical subjects physiological and psychological mereology undergoes constant compositional fluctuations as an open physical and psychological system which renders novel phenomenological states. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

:up:

I don't think we are on the same page at all, I think we are miles apart - too far to bridge today.

Anyway good luck with it. :smile:

Of course on the other hand this may just mean that everything is either relative or absolute, but then the question becomes which one to pick. — Mr Bee

Pick relative, imo. It is fundamentally a relational universe. Einstein's relativity should seal the deal. :smile:

The part I'd most like to discuss is treating information in this two part form which is the only way I can see to give information a physical existence. And the problem with treating information as a singular, non physical form would be that it's physically non existent, an impossibility. — Mark Nyquist

That is a really interesting idea. You have set it out as per your paradigm, and as you say yourself it does not work. I would set out the Venn diagram idealistically:

Information is everything, and everything only makes sense as integrated information ( consciousness ), so the large circle would contain all information and it would represent mind. Within would be a circle for the physical - we can not walk through brick walls, so this circle contains absolute truths / facts. The next circle would contain concepts describing the physical facts - theory ( physics, science, etc ). Then all that is left would be beliefs - beliefs are not part of the set of truths, they have a probabilistic validity. So circles for beliefs of high, medium, and low probability would seem in order. Along these lines you would have mind, and then within it would be sets containing conceptions from high to low confidence value, and this way the Venn diagram would seem to work, without conceptual conflict. Why is that? :chin:

I offer my rabbit three pellets in one hand and two in the other. It always goes for the hand with three pellets first. My rabbit can count! :cool:

I agree with everything you said , but it doesn’t sound like Cartesian trigger-puppets would accept that empirical facts are dependent on and a product of subjective organization. — Joshs

All we can do is plant a seed or two and wait to see if they sprout - unfortunately it cant happen overnight. :cry:
Its nice to find some agreement for a change anyway. :up:

It's no specialized term. It's more a function of my linguistic incompetence in describing such abstract concepts. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I think you did very well. I would have said the non linear, emergent, self organization of the subject in relation to the totality of information effecting them, but it has taken a long time to condense it down to this. Anyway good discussion and welcome aboard. :smile:

What is the relationship between subjectivity and empirical notions like the physical , neurophysiological facts and adeterministic universe? — Joshs

The relationship is that new data must be organized into the main thrust of historical self organization. It must fit into established consciousness, This is the underlying dynamic regardless of what is encountered, be it ethics, morality, subjectivity , objectivity, etc, so its all relativistic. There is no empirical answer to your question, it is all individual responses. We are self organizing after all! , where consciousness = self organization. The responses are self interested, as they must achieve self organization – which entails preserving and advancing the self.
And If we do not achieve this it is disintegrative to our self organization - so it hurts! And If we succeed, it affirms our self organization, so feels good! :smile:

It seems our universe is a self-organizing one! This is its fundamental nature.
— Pop
Ancient atomists (i.e. Cārvāka, Abderites, Epicureans-Lucretians) and daoists clearly thought so. This speaks to a philosophical depth – antiquity – of insight, but extrapolating to something like (a) 'causal-intentional agency' (e.g. pantheism, panpsychism) is wholly unwarranted and also, however non-transcendent, question-begging. — 180 Proof

If you articulate specific questions, I will answer them. No need to beg. :smile:

Or, perhaps, I am misunderstanding the implications of your theory of self -organisation of consciousness. I am not wishing to elevate the ideas of certain creative individuals. I think that the whole area is a complex topic, which includes perspective on phenomenology and states of consciousness. — Jack Cummins

If you are interested in perusing self organization, Neile Theise does a much better job of explaining it then I do.

we all shared in the joy of the moment. — StreetlightX

I think phenomenology would put in terms of an experience that is pleasurable results in Joy or happiness. An experience that is unpleasant results in misery or sadness. It is hedonic.

Joy is a little warmer then happiness, imo?

Thanks again for your response! Then let's look at the question: "When is an apple seed an apple seed?" I believe that while the seed is still in the apple it is still a seed. (Even though it is also part of the apple, at the same time.) The seed doesn't need to be visible in order to exist. If we say the seed only exists when it's not in the apple would deny the seeds existence almost all the time. Apple seeds exist as does other masses. The problem is in our traditional way of perceiving the seed (in our mind) - not in the existence of the seed. — Don Wade

Sorry, but I'm not really following you. I accept that the seed and apple are enmeshed conceptually. But the logic of the enmeshment is quite clear. The relationship of the elements cause the whole - in this case an apple.

But given the vast amount of time that short-lived organisms have had to develop, the deterministic rule might be "If it 'works' it stays." — Bitter Crank

Yes, or If a niche works it stays filled.

I find a lot of credence in your assertion — Bitter Crank

I arrived at it in my own quirky way, but its an idea that really belongs to systems and complexity theory.
The first contemporary exponent, that I'm aware of, was a genius who died quite young. Erich Jantsch wrote "the self organizing universe" in 1951. Since then there have been others, and of late Neil Theise is probably the loudest voice, but its not a widely encountered concept in my experience. It ought to be, imo, as its very powerful theoretically - as a concept that is the cause of everything!

Not sure. Possibly the organised neural network reacting to input. — Brock Harding

Nikola Tesla said, “ If you wish to understand the Universe think of energy, frequency and vibration.
What he didn't explain is why these things self organize! Self organization seems to be fundamental.

Basically the odds of this happening are zero. But what actually happens is that many of the artificial cells have nothing inside the membrane, while a few of the artificial cells have all the necessary ingredients and, against all odds, the experiment works. — Pantagruel

Thanks, can you provide a link please?

I read your ideas about consciousness in the thread on metaphysics. They are interesting from what I read. What I am wondering is do your ideas on self organisation of consciousness have any implications for understanding the experiential level of consciousness and states of awareness? — Jack Cummins

It seems our universe is a self organizing one! This is its fundamental nature. As a consequence of self organization being fundamental, it is present in everything natural, from fundamental particles all the way to and including human consciousness. Indeed the constituent function of consciousness is self organization. How consciousness achieves self organization is varied, but that it must achieve it ( a state of information integration) is constant.

Self organized is the only way the universe could exist, its the only way we could be here. We would not be here having this discussion If our universe was not biased to be just as it is ( self organizing ). Even small shifts in the laws of physics would result in a different universe, and so self organization could not occur ( at least not in its present form ).

So, the universe is biased ( a bias is an emotion) to self organize, by way of integrating information.

Human consciousness is biased ( emotional ) to self organize, by way of integrating information.

Can you see the correlation? If you can, and you agree with the reasoning, then there are interesting consequences. If you also agree with phenomenology then every instance of consciousness is an experience, and every instance of something in our universe is an instance of consciousness. So, it would seem, experience is an unavoidable consequence of being in this universe for all instances of being!

To put it another way, the plants and animals we eat to grow our bodies were having an experience, now they experience being us. When we die they will decompose into something that is also experiential. Given enough time we will experience all there is to experience. :smile: , but not in our present consciousness. People will lament that their present consciousness will not endure, but will be buoyed by the idea of being a part of something greater then what they are - something omnipotent and omniscient - an all creating god like self organization.

Thanks for the reply.

So to continue the figure of speech, the "camera" started with film and then added the chassis, lens, etc. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, in minor evolutionary increments, such as to give the impression of determinism with a small amount of randomness causing variation.

I don't know. DNA, and proximity to same and other cell types seems to be part of how cells organize themselves into tissues and organs. But then, one step back, why did DNA and the cells begin self-organizing in the first place? — Bitter Crank

I think its because self organization is the nature of our universe. There isn't an alternative course of action - you either self organize, or you become part of something else's self organization. Self organization seems to drive evolution, whilst natural selection culls non viable self organization, so in the long run the self organization improves.

Our consciousness, awareness, emotions and views are formed by intermodulation between sensory input and the brain. Physical intermodulation examples can be seen in non-linear devices and radio waves where two signals modulate to form intermodulation. — Brock Harding

Any ideas on what causes these to self organize?

Another example is: "The Sorites Paradox". (The pile of sand is at a different level than the grain of sand.) — Don Wade

In my understanding the Sorties Paradox is just an illustration of how vague questions lead to vague answers - to answer the question definitely, one must remove any vagueness ( pile ) from the question initially, lest the answer will also be vague. An interesting quirk of logic, sure to doom any theory that proceeds on this basis.

an apple seed, and the apple, can occupy the same place at the same time. — Don Wade

What you have stated here is not logical. Two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time. because if they did then they would be the same thing. Whilst a seed is within an apple, an apple is not within a seed. An apple does not occupy the same space as the seed. It occupies more space then the seed. I think your point needs rephrasing.

You may say the totality of all the components of an apple cause an apple to be - this would be how systems and complexity theory would put it.

It seems to me I read that "eyes" were 'invented' in primitive animals as a few cells that could respond to light. Whether they made a difference to the creature by informing a central nervous system of the dawn's early light, or whether they emitted a chemical signal, don't remember. — Bitter Crank

In the absence of a brain and nervous system what is causing them to self organize?

This article is relevant to the question.