CleanstoneDevelopmental and independent evidence for machine minds.

Tree E: patterns as agents. Plan

Status 2026-09-30: parked. Last in the order by design. Context: ../../research-plan.md section 2 (Tree E) and ../../Review.md section 5 (the Sheldrake test). Only E1 is planned; E2 and E3 are listed so the reasons for not doing them are on record.

Goal

Levin's most radical claim is that at the top of the spectrum the agent is the pattern and the body is not. Stripped of ontology, it says that some behavioural attractors belong to the data or to language and to no single model, and they have their own dynamics across substrates. E1 tests the first half only.

E1: cross-model attractor survey

The candidates are the "spiritual bliss attractor", documented in Claude system cards and partially replicated in Llama 3.3 70B by Berg, Keeling and Street, along with persona attractors and specific reasoning failure modes.

Steps:

  1. Define each attractor operationally, as a state the conversation converges to under a specified protocol, with a classifier to score it.
  2. Survey open-weight models with documented, non-overlapping post-training (OLMo, Pythia base, Qwen, Llama, Mistral), taking base models and chat models separately.
  3. For each attractor, check whether it appears in models with no shared post-training data. Where the training data is open (OLMo, Pythia), trace the attractor to it.
  4. Kill condition: every recurring attractor traces to shared post-training or shared pretraining sources. In that case E1 is a data effect and the tree closes.

E2 and E3: not planned

Rules specific to this tree

Cost

Inference only, on open weights. It needs little compute, and its cost is to our reputation.