What matters is the way they are bundled, indeed.
This is a preamble to discussing the idea of mind etc. I thought I would get some things out of the way.
In living systems particularly the structural arrangement is critical to their function, and this includes dynamic factors and concepts like autopoiesis. Its also important to realize that models are not reality, reality tends to be messier than predicted by many models, and care must be taken in inferring from models. Models are abstract. Then there is the issue of dynamic stability. In a cloud of gas you don't need to worry about that, in a preserved timber beam you don't need to worry about that (much), but even in a viral swarm in a host you have to think about that.
Systems biology is the attempt (still in its infancy) to put the pieces together so we can figure out how they work together. The human brain project is in crisis, the brain is still largely outside of our grasp. I do not credit the notion that we cannot in principle understand the mechanisms of brain, that we are not smart enough to understand our own brains. That is trivially true, in detail, just like I do not understand my own city. I don't understand where all the screws, and bolts, and nails, and concrete lumps are in the city. I do understand the general geography and government bodies etc. I hold that the principles of brain and brain function are understandable in principle, but its not something we understand.
If you look at the brain from a complexity viewpoint there is nothing more complex that we are currently studying. Its beyond the complexity, by many orders of magnitude, of any other problem.
Let me start by saying that the DNA does not encode the structure of the brain directly. It encodes mechanisms that work as biochemical rules. The brain precursor cells just apply the rules locally, by mechanisms we partially understand (a scientist who figured out some of those was the inspiration for my PhD attempt). As a consequence, due to local variation and environmental factors, including the external environment, even identical twins do not have the same brain.
Yet its the structural organization of the brain, and the way they work dynamically, that are in principle understandable.
If I look at genetics and the genomics revolution, two things stand out as essential to progress. The first was basic technology, such as gene shears. Without certain advances in technology, other advances become very hard. The second is automation - the ability to apply technology rapidly and in a very controlled fashion. Those two paved the way for the genomics revolution. The issue that much of that revolution is hype is something else again, and a social problem - new fads are often mostly hype.
I do not think we yet have the fundamental technology to really understand the brain. Yet the only way to get there is to keep advancing the science piece by piece until we discover a few things that help, and then we can leverage them with automation.
It is my working hypothesis that mind (as a separate thing) does not exist. I do not argue that it cannot exist, only that it is unnecessary and unproven, and not the simplest hypothesis.
A lot of the arguments in this area are category mistakes. Assumptions are made. Those assumptions are rarely questioned. Science, to me, is about questioning everything. I regard everything in science as an hypothesis, including so-called Laws. A Law is just an hypothesis that is robustly supported. It can still be questioned if the data warrants that. Such as the old Law of Gravity. I also think that science can be applied to absolutely every topic, at least in principle. I do not think that is currently always wise though. Science is a method for asking questions of the universe, not a set of dogmatic facts.
Philosophically I am a pancritical rationalist, of which critical rationalism is a special case. A modern variant of that is empirical scepticism, though scepticism comes from different historical philosophy. Show me the data, and show me the reasoning and realize that progress occurs through questioning, and in science that means experimentation. Indeed in some ways I think questions are more important than answers. The right question, including research questions, can lead to a good answer. The wrong question may give you an answer that is not very good. Of course there can be debate about what is right or wrong or more or less useful, I am just trying to give the flavour of my position.
Much of what I call psychobabble is not because the ideas are impossible. Its because they are badly formulated, hypothetical, unproven, and rely on successive layers of data that only suggest the hypothesis is right, and never test it, and ignore contrary evidence. They seek to verify their ideas, and operate on the 19th century principle that all you need in science is to accumulate enough data so your data pile is bigger than that of the critics.