How complex is a clockwork in comparison?

[Jannes]

In this ranking of how complex an object actually is, where would you put a clockwork? I think there is a point to be made to put it anywhere — no manmade object comes even close to the intelligence to natural things like a biological thing like a leaf (when you look at the cellular level) or maybe even a rock. So that could be reason to put it very low. On the other hand it expresses a kind of meta intelligence — the object in a way is an expression of awareness of reality. But is this moreso a secondary attribute, or is it somehow backed into an object in an actual way?

 

Its a real practical question btw. I want to view targets for remote viewing and this is one question I want to ask "how complex is the target?". 

Edited 4 hours ago by Jannes

[LastThursday]

Interesting question. I'm struck by the idea of self-assembly and copying. A shell, leaf and a brain assemble themselves from matter over time, they grow. A pebble or stone is ground down from bigger lumps. All leaves, shells and brains of a particular type are similar, stones are randomly sized and shaped.

A clockwork doesn't assemble itself and is more like a stone. But it does get assembled by something that is self-assembled (a person), so you could call it an epiphenomenon of nature. Its complexity is way less than even a shell, although, you could also call a shell an epiphenomenon. But, there could potentially be many identical copies of a clockwork.

A stone could have a complex mix of constituents, but the arrangement is not orderly. I'm guessing a clockwork is mostly brass or steel, possibly ruby for bearings, maybe gold for trim, and quartz for glass; maybe that's fewer ingredients than a stone or pebble? 

Edited 4 hours ago by LastThursday