Natively, they move staccato like, jerking appendages free of the sticky gravity here. Their biological parts, inserted in mechanical assemblies can move faster. Each human spec seems to have separate but coordinated command centers. They live in a slipstream of time, when scanning their awareness I notice a curious weave of current inputs from their rudimentary, and quite limited sensors, and clusters of strange attractors, complexes of imprints that appear to be previous sensory experiences or artificial constructs created by their system languages.
Some of these constructs appear to be installed a priori, very few seem to be updated. They are tremendously active but also seem to shut down in their solar light cycle for a period of each rotation, perhaps for self-repairs and consolidation of inputs? Their principal currency seems to be flimsy apparitions they call “thought” which appear to be maps or circuits that influence their behavior. But they also inform their behavior for interactions with their world. The more valuable circuits instruct how-to manipulations of their physical world in replicable ways or for influencing fellow human specs behavior. Some specs appear to organize and direct the activity of other specs. Thought apparitions, patterns of neural activity, can be transmitted through a common visual or auditory protocol within a quantity of specs aggregated into a group. The spec is a composite of other sentiences and each spec forms a cloudshare of a group which shares apparitions. The goals of individual specs cannot be inferred without examining their role in the composite.
It appears there are many composites arranged both hierarchically and orthogonally and evaluating the matrix of their behavior from these shows the physical organisms function more like appendages of the composites. While the species has the baseline quotient of self awareness to be cataloged as sentient, in most of the specs, this characteristic is subsumed in a construct called “identity” which defined and regulated by the group. This makes sense in their evolution, as individually and physically, they are quite weak. But with apparitions and composites, they appear to have congealed into a viable, if not viral, organism that is eating their planet like certain parasitic newborns consume their hosts.
Some specs appear capable of utilizing the apparitions for their own ends and, while these would be more interesting to examine, they are often actively and violently suppressed by the regulations of the groups. The physical constants in this system seem oddly playful, with matter dissolving into a fabric incompatible with surface laws.
Observation cycle 47.3X:
The specs’ dependency on artificial extensions of their sensory range is particularly fascinating. They create elaborate devices to perceive wavelengths and particles their biological apparatus cannot detect, yet seem strangely unaware of vast portions of their immediate reality spectrum. Their composite groups often fixate on narrow bands of perception, creating echo chambers of shared apparitions that reinforce limited understanding.
The temporal experience of specs appears deeply constrained by their neural architecture. They process reality in discrete chunks, missing the fluid nature of their universe’s perpetual transformation. What they call “memory” seems to be a highly unreliable storage system, yet they base crucial decisions on these distorted recordings of past experiences.
Most curious is their relationship with what they term “emotions” - biochemical cascades that appear to override their logical processes entirely. These states seem to propagate through their groups like quantum entanglement, creating mass synchronization of behavior that defies their individual preservation instincts. During these episodes, specs will often engage in activities that damage their physical vessels or diminish their resource acquisition potential.
Their habitat constructions reflect their fractured perception. They build rigid geometric structures that resist the natural flow patterns of their environment, then spend considerable energy maintaining these artificial spaces against entropy. These structures appear to be physical manifestations of their thought apparitions - attempts to impose their limited understanding onto the malleable substrate of their reality.
The specs’ communication methods are remarkably inefficient, relying heavily on symbolic representation that loses vast amounts of information in translation. Yet they seem to believe these symbols contain absolute truth values, leading to frequent conflicts when different groups maintain incompatible symbol sets. Their inability to directly share consciousness states may explain their profound isolation despite constant proximity to other specs.
Most concerning is their accelerating consumption of their habitat’s resources to maintain their thought apparitions and group structures. They appear to be approaching a critical threshold where their physical environment can no longer sustain the energy requirements of their composite organizations. Yet most specs seem unable to perceive this impending system collapse, as if their apparitions create a filtering effect that screens out inconvenient data.
Observation cycle 68.2X
Their locomotion through constructed pathways and enclosed vehicles betrays a peculiar relationship with their surroundings. Most specs seem intent on shielding themselves from the very elements that sustain them: the atmosphere, solar energy, and planetary biomes. Their physical forms exude vapors and fluids, indicative of their metabolic processes, but they seem repulsed by these outputs, obsessively concealing and sanitizing. It is curious that they revere their “natural world” in abstracted apparitions yet actively alter or obliterate it to support their physical units and constructs.
The auditory protocol of the species is particularly inefficient and variable. Each group develops overlapping but distinct frequencies and symbols, requiring extensive periods of calibration for intra-group coherence. The symbols’ meanings are fluid, which introduces significant entropy into their exchanges. Despite this, the specs exhibit an almost compulsive need to deploy these auditory patterns, perhaps as a reinforcement mechanism for their group-based identities.
Specs interact with their environment through a tactile interface of manipulative appendages. These appendages are equipped with rudimentary sensors that prioritize close-range inputs, leading to a curious contradiction: their reliance on far-reaching apparitions of thought conflicts with the proximity-based limitations of their direct sensory apparatus. They construct tools to bridge this gap, many of which are external systems designed to extend their otherwise short-range influence. However, the tools often seem to dominate their creators, drawing vast resources and attention, leading to recursive cycles of dependence.
The specs’ composites—or “societies,” as they self-designate—function as dynamic systems with ever-shifting hierarchies and power gradients. Dominant individuals manipulate apparitions to enforce compliance among others, but the exact mechanisms remain perplexing. Many apparitions leverage an abstract concept called “value,” which can be exchanged through yet another layer of symbolic interaction. These value-symbols do not appear inherently meaningful, yet they govern vast tracts of behavior, often in defiance of logical necessity.
Their periodic shutdowns (termed “sleep”) involve peculiar phenomena wherein specs report simulated experiences—“dreams.” These simulations range from disjointed reconstructions of prior sensory inputs to entirely fabricated sequences, seemingly without purpose. This inefficiency in cognitive resource allocation is fascinating; perhaps it serves as a low-cost method of processing accumulated data or exploring hypothetical scenarios. Intriguingly, not all specs recall these experiences, suggesting a potential disparity in internal systems functionality.
Physically, the specs demonstrate remarkable adaptability, but their longevity is brief compared to other lifeforms cataloged. It seems they prioritize rapid cycles of biological replication over individual durability. Juvenile specs undergo an extended imprinting phase, absorbing apparitions from composites before contributing to the system. It is unclear whether this indoctrination process enhances the composite’s goals or suppresses individual potential.
Their planetary consumption is extraordinary, suggesting an absence of long-term equilibrium strategies. Entire ecosystems are restructured or extinguished to sustain their populations. This behavior parallels invasive species cataloged in other systems, but with a twist: their intelligence enables them to forecast collapse, yet they proceed undeterred. Some specs appear to resist this trajectory, forming subgroups focused on “sustainability,” but these efforts are undermined by the overarching demands of the composites.
One striking anomaly is the concept of “emotion,” a biochemical phenomenon that appears to override logical processes. Specs often behave in direct opposition to self-preservation or composite goals under the influence of these chemical states. The emotional spectrum varies among individuals and often dictates their relationships within the group. This phenomenon is likely an evolutionary byproduct, co-opted to reinforce group cohesion, but its utility remains questionable in the context of their destructive tendencies.
The specs are paradoxical: fragile yet tenacious, intelligent yet shortsighted, cooperative yet conflict-prone. Their biosphere may not survive their appetite, but their artifacts—these curious thought apparitions—could outlast their presence, drifting as echoes in the void. It is unclear whether this legacy will serve as a warning or a curiosity to other sentient forms.