Yes, Amadeus, everything is a problem of interpretation. But first I would like to go through the controversial point which Iacchus32 has raised. Then I will say something about optical illusions.
Probably what Iacchus32 calls "navigator" is -- with some modifications -- what I would call the overall order of an entity / process (when dealing concretely eg. with lithium, we refer to the overall order of lithium, not of something else). And what Iacchus32 seems to attribute to this overall order, if I understand him correctly, is something like an ability of putting together and steering the entity / process -- in the example of lithium, that a composition of 4 neutrons, 3 protons and 3 electrons actually results and is maintained (not producing eg. a lithium+ ion or a lithium 6 isotope).
I have a hunch that we don't find an agreement because we don't talk in a sufficiently precise way, or maybe even not about exactly the same. Some talk more about the aspect of law of nature of this entity / process. Usually physicists talk about the law of being eg. a lithium atom (while in this example I prefer to talk about the law of the process of lithium appearing, existing, and disappearing, because only this is the whole picture, not only an aspect). Others talk more about the aspect of agency, which produces the changes according to that law. And sometimes there is even a conceptual mixup. But for understanding, the two aspects are not the same, because no law can act on its own, while a force (agency) needs a law to obey. In any entity / process, both aspects operate together, but for understanding that entity they must be distinguished (which is precisely no act of dissection).
The trouble with what Iacchus32 says is that we cannot attribute the same type of overall order (i.e. of "navigator") to all entities. There is indeed a difference between inert and alive entities / processes, insofar as in an alive entity / process something (whether an entelecheia or some or genes is not defined yet) organizes the thing, while an inert entity / process is organized by its environment. The difference is that all alive entities can modify part of their own order (eg. they can move, they have a metabolism, etc.), while inert objects are fully determined by external elements. Many people believe chemistry proves that matter acts on its own. They forget that something must place the bits of matter so that -- in the words of Iacchus32 -- a radio results out of the bucket of parts, or in physics an atom of lithium out of neutrons, protons and electrons (not eg. some ion or isotope).
Sometimes science produces objectively unnecessary problems. In the given example, we can either see a vase or two faces, but not both simultaneously. The question is how we interpret this empirical fact. Zero seems to believes there are real optical illusions, that the senses cannot be trusted and that cognitive theory must be believed. BUT ... We can notice that once we saw both, we can decide which one to see, and switch at will. In this way we can experience what makes the real difference (since the percept as such is the same): the mental representation that we produce through our interpretation at will. Offhand we can coherently have only one representation at a time. Wanting to have both requires quite some effort: mere gazing at the lines won't yield the result, but people who are sufficiently trained mentally can remain even in the undecided state of mind. What they did is grasp the facts, thereby creating mentally a representation which encompasses both in the tertium comparationis. The choice at will is crucial — and precisely what the cognitive sciences will never be able to find, because it is unthinkingly excluded from their categoreal structure and can thus not appear in their query.
Summing up: I think for a real understanding of material structures it is necessary to operate in categories which allow to handle already the two opposed aspects of law and agency in an adequate way. This is not warranted in the usual terminology. In my approach I add another two opposed categories, two conditions of dynamic equilibrium, which allow to handle also the aspects of aliveness. My categoreal structure opens the door to a natural science that can handle all of life -- eg. in the face / vase example, the aspect of force / will (and for the details, the two conditions of dynamic equilibrium) makes an understanding effortlessly clear, as opposed to the results of science, where in the end you have to BELIEVE in something that is not totally clear (which must be shifted into smaller entities all the time), or in what somebody else (like a science guru) says...
