Crop Circles in 3D 1997 ...

[Haiku]

Rambling of a Wandering Mind: Continuance of time on a mobius strip.

I am hoping that we all are able to see where we might be in the time cycle. Are we at the crest, it is a possibility? As far as I have read and understood, the universe is still expanding. So that means we are not exactly at some impending point of universe compression reversal, that is still ahead on this time curve. This brings us to our cluster of souls that we have here in this reality. I envision a gathering, possibly a galaxy in structure, where you have a spherical grouping that tapers off to a thinner edge. And out on the far edges lesser clusters of souls, with one major point. The structure needs to always be balanced. And by that, I mean there is an equal number of STS vs STO souls. For if the balance is otherwise, everything comes loose, like you are seeing today. Let me present this image of what I am implying here. It also helps with the explanation. You see this cross-section of a concept I was speaking of. This cluster (actually a side view of the milky way galaxy) has this vertical separation line in the middle of it signifying the separation between STO and STS orientations. Think of it as the midplane of this reality, like the 50% line. Those souls on the right are STO oriented and the opposing souls on the left are STS oriented. Our first subject, a STO oriented individual, with a STO orientation of 51%, just off center to the right, has an opposing STS soul at 51% to balance both souls in the structure. They would look like this on the plot. Now these two souls may even know each other and not even notice that they are opposing souls, balancing out this reality. Now I have a horizontal line in the image, that is for another representation in this main image. This line is the edge of reality that is connected to the time curve. I am going to place another line just above and mirrored below. These two lines signify the start of a different group of souls. Those souls that lie farther from this center horizontal line are less connected to the reality. I envision that this is where OP’s congregate. One item here that I have not worked out is what does it mean to be above the horizontal line to being below it. It may have a deeper meaning, but I do not know what that is yet. But back to our subjects. If you have another subject that is say 60% STO orientated, like this guy here then there is another opposing soul in the structure at 60% STS. The soul’s at each end are those that guide this reality. At all times, the balance needs to be maintained. Now onto just were I might fit myself into this mapping may be interesting.

My case is of other knowledge. I believe that I have seen my balancing soul. As many of you know I was given the honor of being one of many souls to see the STS contingency, up close and personal. This is my UFO encounter and getting to see the STS opposition through a portal on the craft, showing me the one in charge of it. I am contending that this soul, a STS Orion fourth or fifth density that I call my nemesis/friend, is my opposing soul in this reality. Where ever I am in this structure (suggesting that I am STO oriented), about here, but in reality, I could be anywhere in the thinner section toward the ends. And my opposing soul, my nemesis, is going to be weighted similarly in the STS structure. We balance each other out, maintaining this reality. You see those farther out in this structure have more influence in the balance, not by weight but by an orientation balancing effect.

So, what this means is there is an opposing you (soul) somewhere in this reality that balances this reality, or there needs to be. But unbeknownst to you, as your soul progress so does the opposing soul in opposition. Because of this state that this world is in, I would say that there are a great many of these soul oppositions that are off balanced to the STS side. And we need to keep up with our opposing soul, this is why there is this urgency, we need everybody to gain knowledge and STO orientation. Don’t let your opposing soul offset your balancing effect in this reality …

Rambling of a Wandering Mind, Side story2: Back door to your inner you.

This is a good one. The December 9, 2017 session started all of this one. I work with computers and programs every day. I always leave myself a back door to any computer or program that I utilize. I setup a system password that never changes. Something simple that I can use to fix or revise something. So why would I do any different in the programs in myself. I am positive that I left a back door in myself. This is like …

New movie out, Name Passengers. Good plot, high tech and so, it was an entertaining movie. But being an engineer, the thought of this trip across space without any failures was laughable. The first sleep pod that failed was through a component that did have a redundant system but still failed. In the plot of the movie, this had never happened. As an engineer, I would have had to put in the “Oop’s” button somewhere only an improperly woken individual would be able to push. Or you keep a minimal team awake, just for the trip, just in case, to attend to any unforeseen issues.

I think of this because of the back door thought direction. I would have put an oop’s button on the ship, a back door. I expect that I, and all others, have an oop’s button, a back door to programming, the inner you/me. An accessible point of entry.

Why do I want to find this back door? I am interested in editing my profile, loosen the tolerances a little. I want to turn off programs, decode them, to allow me to access these areas that I have turned off to come into this reality of third density. We are in a time of blending where third and fourth densities are one. I expect that this was in my life plan, to happen at some point in this reality because of the blending. Not just that but to work to help others, even more.

Now the concept is not one without alternate effects. If one does happen to open themselves up without the required effort, it might be like a grenade to your soul. There is much that you can connect to and if the effort is not properly done then you could drive yourself crazy. The first thing you will come in contact with is thought and how open it really is. Being exposed to this volume of thoughts without some kind of self-controlling effort can be disturbing. Moreover, the connection to the ether is the ultimate exposure, in controlled thought. There will be many others, as you proceed. Building your knowledge is the most important thing that you can be doing right now.

As for me wanting to find my backdoor, well it is not going to be a simple sight trick. It will take time and discipline to reach this state, I am not there. But as for opening up, I am thinking that my efforts with the crop circles will assist in my opening up. Because of the effort needed (mental and physical), and no instant gratification, this is going to be a great task. Each crop circle may be allowing me to peak into my inner me and one day it may just pop fully open. Until then I will be continuing this effort into the CC’s hoping to expand myself through them. I hope that you all can find your effort to assist in your endeavor …

This brings us to the Crop Circle part of this session. I have two that have one similarity, a compression factor of four. The difference being, one is shown inside of a spherical shape and the other is displaying objects that appear to be outside the main spherical shape. I guess I will say it, I have an innie and an outie, but why? What purpose is there in showing the crop circle in this manor? How does this aspect affect the understanding of both of these presentations. Why …

Morestead, Hampshire 06/21/1997

The innie CC of this session. I only have one image of this CC. That indicates to me that it was either not noticed by any other CC investigators of the time or, it was suspected as a fraud. You see, I have noticed that when one of these CC is noticed by many others and documented, it incites that it may be of importance (or meant to confuse). And the opposition may also be noted that a lack of documentation may lead one to imply a level of confusion (or importance concealed). What is this one? Let’s let the facts decide. I see type ‘C’ spectrum of energy with a compression factor of four. The crop laydown is even and very clean. The patterns of flow in this spectrum are consistent between all crop laydown patterns. If this was a STS presentation I would expect some sign of hurried output as this one would take many man hours to create such a clean display. I see none of that here. I suspect that this CC is of STO orientation. Although, I do have my own doubt’s in this. There is a graining effect in the crop laydown, this we have seen before in other CC’s. This has only been seen in STO orientated CC’s.

But why show this CC inside of a greater centre? We have seen many of these where all elements of a CC are shown in this manner. Like this one, the objects are truncated to this spherical shape, intently. This intent must be attempting to demonstrate some kind of effect that we are not understanding yet.

Let’s look at this implied intent. What does it mean to being displayed in a sphere? Words that come to mind are containment, protection and security. And the truncation of shown objects is also of concern. Whoever created this display cut off diametrical objects to a circular element. Like you are looking through a fish eye lens that shorts you of the viewed upon items. Containment seems sensible, like you need containment when handling this energy. Protection is also valid, as you may need to protect you/it from the other. Security as in, this is much larger than you realize, this is all that you get to see, at this time (a peak through a window, which might really be the case here). My work with inductive, plasma and electron beam furnaces back up all of these principles. Truthfully, this is only the edge of the iceberg for why these are displayed this way. A thought on it; how about a closeup view of a single point on a fractal that could change the way everything is envisioned in this reality or a microscopic view of some molecule of some importance (yea, those are out there for sure, bring it back down a bit).

Modeling this CC, I will be creating spherical objects of all items. I will truncate them to the greater centre as is shown in the display. I also have thoughts of seeing this through a window or a microscope lens. Giving a close up view, a point of clarity in this reality, if it does not take too long. Now onto our second crop circle, the outie.

Headbourne Worthy, Hampshire 07/07/1997 (a lot of seven’s there)

In opposition of its predecessor, the innie where the greater centre truncates the objects. In this CC, the greater centre is truncated by the outer objects. Like this is what you might see in the innie CC, if you were to take away the truncated view. A much bigger picture might reveal itself. A good display, it had three adventurers that would document this CC. All show this CC to be STO oriented by crop laydown and placements of objects. A clean presentation. Again, I am seeing defined grooving in the crop laydown. According to my old spectrum of energy standard, this is possibly presenting itself as type ‘E’ spectrum of energy or a type ‘C’.

One issue I have is the location of the perimeter objects to the greater centre. The question I have, is the greater centre on the same plane as the perimeter objects or are the perimeter objects above the greater centre giving the illusion of intersecting objects. I am planning on doing a planar version, but it could very well be my latter concept. So, I am off to create some models and images of results. Back soon …

OK modeling done. I want to point one thing out. The first CC that I reviewed was in 1993 and was identified as alternating current. It had a distinctive straight graining applied in opposing patterns on it. I see this same presentation in both of these CC’s but in radial arc patterns. I am thinking that these are similar, they are like alternating current, an energy like we plug into, but next density level. Could be something we connect to or utilize in some fashion. Like these CC’s, I see the innie as energy contained and the outie as energy exposed?

Other than that, I wanted to note that the outie had interesting features that may have a connection here. Each lesser center has a halo object that appears to interconnect with the greater center. Halo’s being identified as transference and radial patterned imply a unique symmetrical connection here. Like earth, air, fire and water, just suggesting a connection similar to that.

Well, that is all for this session. We are getting close to finishing up the 1997 year of CC’s. I have a few more that I am currently looking at, interesting presentations that excite me to look further. So, until next time, Haiku …

 

[Haiku]

Henwood, Hampshire 07/14/1997

There is a bug in the system, or is that a system in a bug. Today’s session is about a crop circle that looks like some kind of insect. Now most insects have three body sections (head, thorax and abdomen). First statement: this is not an insect. This CC presentation is definitely showing four body sections. And the only bug that I know of that has four body sections is an ant, and a few copy cat insects, imitating them. So we have some kind of ant, but not an ant that we can identify with. And why is that? Look here at the legs. The legs are depicted as extending from the second body section and another set extending out of the third body section. Science lesson …

“Parts of an ant. An ant has four body parts: head, mesosoma, waist and gaster. The head has mandibles (pincer-like jaws), antennae and compound eyes. The three pairs of legs are joined to the mesosoma.” Now back to the session …

Then what we are seeing here in this CC is not our ant but possibly another ant. What kind of ant, well I would think that we are looking at a possible forth density ant lifeform. A lifeform that evolved out of an ant species, it is a possibility. I just am having difficulty with identifying this as an ant species. Look at the rest of the CC. The antenna are way too short, something an ant uses for a great many tasks. The legs would not be able to support a body of this size. It would be wasting all of its strength just to move itself. And the legs attached to different body sections, it might be an ideal creation to have it that way. It would make it even more maneuverable in rough terrain, an improvement that seems like it would be capable. But not like our ants where all legs are connected to a single point on their body. Then why show them this way. A way that might possibly make an ant better. Was that to show improvement? Like, be not just like an ant, but an improved ant. Or an ant that was even better than an ant is today.

Maybe this is not just an ant or any insect, it is a metaphor for a purpose, a function. So do not think it as our ant or any ant species that exist anywhere. Think of it as a symbol of this purpose or function. Well I guess we should spend some time understanding the ant and what it symbolizes. So, you know what that means, Homework.

I went out and found a couple of items on ants, you might want to look further for your own edification. Please take some time to review what I found, as it is inciteful of a simpler existence through complex in-place systems. Enjoy …

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weve-been-looking-at-ant-intelligence-the-wrong-way/

An excerpt of what was Written by Antoine Wystrach, University of Sussex (Editor's note: The following essay is reprinted with permission from The Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research.)

‘We now know that the path produced by a navigating ant is based on sophisticated mechanisms.

Ants use a variety of cues to navigate, such as sun position, polarized light patterns, visual panoramas, gradient of odors, wind direction, slope, ground texture, step-counting … and more. Indeed, the list of cues ants can utilize for navigation is probably greater than for humans.

Counter-intuitively, years of bottom-up research has revealed that ants do not integrate all this information into a unified representation of the world, a so-called cognitive map. Instead they possess different and distinct modules dedicated to different navigational tasks. These combine to allow navigation.

One module keeps track of distance and direction travelled, and continually updates an estimate of the best “bee-line” home. A second module, dedicated to the learning of visual scenery, allows ants to recognize and navigate rapidly along important routes as defined by familiar visual cues. Finally, ants possess an emergency plan for when both of these systems fail to indicate what to do: in other words, when the ant is lost. In this case, they display a systematic search pattern.

In our recent work, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society, we have discovered a fourth strategy: backtracking. We showed that ants keep track of the direction they have just been travelling, allowing them to backtrack if they unexpectedly move from familiar to unfamiliar surroundings.

From a human perspective, this seems sensible, and is probably what we would do if unexpectedly encountered an unfamiliar street while walking through town. What is most interesting, with regard to the cognitive sophistication or intelligence of the ant, is that ants display this backtracking behavior only if they had seen their nest’s surroundings immediately prior to getting lost. This ensures that backtracking happens only when the ant is likely to be beyond the nest, rather than short of it.

Thus, we have evidence that ants can also take into account what they have recently experienced in order to modulate their behavior. What’s more, we have shown that the ant’s navigational modules are not purely isolated. In the case of backtracking for instance, the experience of familiar visual scenery modulates the use of sky compass information.’

This is another impressive, albeit longer, description that may shed some light to a similar objective …

https://aeon.co/essays/how-ant-societies-point-to-radical-possibilities-for-humans

Written by: Deborah M Gordon, is a professor of biology at Stanford University. She has written about her research for publications such as Scientific American and Wired. Her latest book is Ant Encounters: Interaction Networks and Colony Behavior (2010).

‘It’s easy to find familiar examples of division of labor. In a corporation, some people work in sales and others in accounting; in an orchestra, some play the bassoon and others the violin. Since no one is born an accountant or a bassoonist, in a system with division of labor, differentiated skills must be acquired. ‘Division of labor’ evokes an organization characterized by a fit between role – what each participant does – and its natural ability.

Historically, many have found the idea of division of labor a compelling and powerful model. Plato admired it, Adam Smith explained how economies benefit from it, and Henry Ford industrialized it. But it’s not natural. A vision of human society ordered and improved by division of labor has permeated and distorted our understanding of nature. In high-school biology, for example, people are taught that a body consists of cells specialized to perform certain functions. Skin cells stick together and seal wounds, while blood cells hurtle along picking up and handing off oxygen. But different kinds of cells originate from a few identical ones, and some cells, such as stem cells, can change type. Textbooks tell us that these are merely transitory stages along the way to the ideal condition in which each cell does its particular job.

Ant colonies seem the perfect natural instance of a social system governed by division of labor. All known species of ants – now about 14,000 – live in colonies. An ant colony consists of one or more reproductive females, called ‘queens’, who lay the eggs. All the rest of the ants, the ones you see walking around, are sterile female ‘workers’, daughters of the queen and the males with whom she mated.

In the 1970s, the biologist E O Wilson set the agenda for research on ants by extolling the virtues of division of labor. He freely used metaphors from human society to describe a colony as a ‘factory within a fortress’. In this metaphor, each ant is programmed to carry out its appointed task. Some ants feed the larvae; while others go out to get food. Using a term that refers to ascribed social positions in Hindu society, Wilson called an ant’s task its ‘caste’. The idea was that an ant’s task is fixed. The implication was that the workers in an ant colony, all sisters or half-sisters, are divided into naturally fixed groups, and genetically programmed to perform a particular task. This perspective is depicted in the movie Antz (1998): a harried bureaucrat stamps each larva as a soldier or forager. Thus each ant’s role is unalterable destiny, much like the handsome and intelligent Alphas and the semi-moronic Epsilons of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1931).

We know now that ants do not perform as specialized factory workers. Instead ants switch tasks. An ant’s role changes as it grows older and as changing conditions shift the colony’s needs. An ant that feeds the larvae one week might go out to get food the next. Yet in an ant colony, no one is in charge or tells another what to do. So, what determines which ant does which task, and when ants switch roles?

The colony is not a monarchy. The queen merely lays the eggs. Like many natural systems without central control, ant societies are in fact organized not by division of labor but by a distributed process, in which an ant’s social role is a response to interactions with other ants. In brief encounters, ants use their antennae to smell one another, or to detect a chemical that another ant has recently deposited. Taken in the aggregate, these simple interactions between ants allow colonies to adjust the numbers performing each task and to respond to the changing world. This social coordination occurs without any individual ant making any assessment of what needs to be done.

For millennia, ants have been held up as models for human societies, characterized by coordinated and efficient mutual regard and selfless hard work. In the Iliad, Zeus changes the ants of Thessaly to soldiers after a plague wiped out the men, creating the Myrmidons, who beat back the Trojans. Aesop’s fable of the ant and the grasshopper celebrates the ant’s capacity for delayed gratification, collecting food to be used later. Unlike the frivolous and short-sighted grasshopper, the virtuous ants contribute to their society. Aesop’s ant lugging a seed home is bringing food for the colony. Similarly, the Myrmidon’s willingness to sacrifice, in their case their lives, makes them heroic soldiers in Achilles’ army.

In 1747, when the English naturalist William Gould listed the ‘moral Instructions arising from the Sight of a Colony of Ants’, he pointed out that the ants worked ‘for the common Emolument, [that] might let us know the Consequence of Public Good’. Each ant, he observed, is dedicated to the task it ought to do for the benefit of the others. The modern scientific narrative about the division of labor that characterizes ant colonies tells essentially the same story: ants demonstrate that if everyone does the job they are supposed to do, indeed were born to do, all of us are better off.

In a system organized by division of labor, each individual specializes in a particular task. The specialization is justified because of differences among individuals in how well they perform tasks. Division of labor always entails specialization, but it can take different forms. Plato favored the horizontal form, in which a single actor performs each task. Adam Smith preferred the vertical, in which different people accomplish parts of a single task. Henry Ford extended and expanded the vertical form in the flow of work in a factory.

Division of labor offers advantages to human society because, among other reasons, people differ in abilities. Plato considered these differences in ability a matter of talent as well as preference:

One man is good at one thing, another at another … So, more things are produced, and better things, when every man does what he can do best, without being troubled by having to do other things in addition.

For Smith, division of labor brought the advantage of learning and improvement, ‘the increase in dexterity’ that comes of repeating a task. It also brought increases in efficiency; Smith saw changing tasks as an opportunity for a workman to slack off, engaging in ‘sauntering and… indolent careless application, [which] almost always renders him slothful and lazy’.

Ford shared more of Smith’s views about division of labor than Plato’s. He didn’t care about talent or learning. ‘Why is it,’ Ford complained, ‘every time I ask for a pair of hands, they come with a brain attached?’ Ford was interested in speed. He realized that, troubled or not, people could work faster if they didn’t have to put down one tool and pick up another.

When Wilson introduced the notion of ant colonies organized by the division of labor, he framed it as evidence that natural selection had shaped workers to do the tasks they do best. An ant emerges from a pupa as an adult of a certain size, and stays that size throughout its life. In some species, there are ants of different sizes within a colony. Wilson claimed that task and body type coincide: large ants would be soldiers, smaller ones dedicated to more domestic tasks.

In fact, the data here are sparse and contradictory. Though the largest ants are often designated as ‘soldiers’, in fights between ant species the smaller species often prevails. A large ant, for example, is helpless if six tiny ones grab each of its legs. In some species in the genus Pheidole, the large-headed ‘soldiers’ show no military inclinations; instead they tend to stay in the nest and use their large jaw muscles to crack seeds. But if there are not enough small ants to go outside and forage, the larger ones will do the same tasks as the smaller ones.

In advocating the division of labor model, Wilson argued that ant workers of a certain size performed certain tasks better than workers of another size. In this view, the leaf-cutter ants cutting the leaves were not too big, not too small, but just right for leaf-cutting. It’s an appealing theory, but there is no real evidence that ants of a certain size do one task better than others. Another challenge to the generality of the theory is that in the great majority (about 276 of 326) of genera of ants, all the ants in a colony are the same size.
Moreover, regardless of size, as ant workers get older, they move from one task to another, switching tasks as circumstances require. But switching tasks, either in stages of life or in the short term, is not consistent with organization by division of labor. However, appealing it might be to imagine ant colonies organized by division of labor, the evidence tells us they are not.

What I and others have found, instead, is that the collective process of task allocation in ant colonies is based on networks of simple interactions. For example, in harvester ants, colonies regulate foraging activity, adjusting the numbers of ants currently out searching for seeds to the amount of food available. An outgoing forager does not leave the nest until it meets enough returning foragers coming back with food. This creates a simple form of positive feedback: the more food is available, the more quickly foragers find it, and the more quickly they return to the nest, eliciting more foraging. When I provide a windfall of food by placing a lovely little pile of organic millet outside the colony, ants that formerly performed other tasks switch to become foragers. Each encounter, in the form of a brief antennal contact, has no meaning to the ant, but in the aggregate, the rate of encounters determines how many ants are currently foraging.

The system that ant colonies use to organize their work is a distributed process. Like division of labor, distributed processes can take different forms. A distributed process is not the opposite of division of labor – but it’s different in important ways. Primarily, in a distributed process, there is never central control, while in division of labor there might be. A leader can tell one citizen to make candles and another to make shoes. In a distributed process this would happen through local interactions, for example with people who want to buy candles or shoes – creating demand that is filled by an entrepreneur who then meets the demand.

At least in the short term, a system organized by a distributed process and one organized by division of labor could look the same: the same individuals could do the same task over and over. An ant might do the same task day after day. It might go out to forage, come back to the nest, engage again in the interactions that stimulate it to forage, and spend the night among other ants that recently returned from foraging. The next morning, it is again in a situation in which it is likely to forage, and this could continue day after day. However, in different conditions, the ant might do another task, and so its role is not fixed.

Distributed processes and division of labor can both be effective, but they don’t function in the same way. For division of labor, specialization can lead to better work. By contrast, in a distributed process, the fact that individuals are interchangeable makes the whole system more robust and more resilient. If the individual who performs a task gets lost or becomes unfit to do it, another can step in. The individuals don’t have to be all alike, but the differences among them are not large enough to affect the viability of the system. Most fathers might not be as good at changing diapers as most mothers but, at 3am, the finer points of technique don’t matter. If anyone changes the diaper, the baby goes back to sleep.

The term ‘distributed process’ originated in computer science. There, it means that no single unit, such as a router in a data network, knows what all the others are doing and tells them what to do. Instead, interactions between each unit and its local connections add up to the desired outcome. Distributed processes often operate in parallel rather than in series. An assembly line works in series: the handle of the car door must be put on before the door is installed, and the door can’t be installed until the person who puts on the handle has finished. In a parallel process, different steps can be done at the same time. Suppose each worker built a car from beginning to end. Then if one worker takes a little longer to put on the door handle on one car, this will not affect when the next worker can install the door on their car. If all the tasks are relatively simple, parallel processes go much faster than serial ones. This is true of computers, in which the logic gates perform very simple tasks, creating electrical versions of 1s and 0s. Compared with processing in series, parallel processing makes it possible to accomplish far more elaborate operations in a short time.

Because data networks, such as the internet, are undergoing very rapid growth, distributed processes are attracting great interest. But they entail a fundamental departure from systems based on central control: for many distributed algorithms, the outcome is not completely predictable. Although it’s possible to say what will happen on average, what will happen in particular cases can’t be specified precisely. Such uncertainty is inimical to the hearts of engineers who love things to work the same way every time. That engineers value predictability is a good thing for all of us who cross bridges and travel in airplanes. But distributed processes have distinct advantages for certain kinds of engineered systems, such as large data or electrical networks, in which the failure of one tiny part is not critical. They create redundancy at the expense of efficiency, and sacrifice precision for solutions that are good enough most of the time.

Distributed processes also have analogues in nature. In the 1970s and ’80s, as computer scientists saw the value of distributed processes in programming, they began to point out the analogies with natural systems. Douglas Hofstadter’s influential book Gödel, Escher, Bach (1979) used ant colonies and brains as metaphors for computer systems. David Rumelhart, another computer scientist, extended this idea to neural networks, models that explain how parts of a brain might work using parallel distributed processes. Now, scientists are studying distributed algorithms throughout nature, from circuits formed by neurons in brains or the interactions of metastasizing cancer cells, to the movement of a flock of starlings or school of fish.

Ants can show how distributed processes might allow us to adjust to a changing environment; to build nests, decide when to move, or change from working inside the nest to foraging outside. It is becoming clear that the ant colonies’ algorithms are diverse, in interesting ways. Similar processes are at work in other natural systems without central control. For example, although certain large regions of the brain seem to be involved in particular tasks, at the level of neurons it looks like division of labor is not the rule. The same neurons are involved in different tasks, and the same task can be accomplished by different neurons.

It can be very difficult to let go of the idea of division of labor. Humans have always used arguments about supposedly intrinsic attributes to justify social roles. Kings ruled by divine right and ancestry, while others were slaves based on race or physical attributes. Such ideas pervade the rhetoric of US society and politics. We are told that Mexicans are rapists and Muslims are terrorists and, from the other side, a much more benign version but deriving from a similar philosophical stance: that Americans are optimistic and energetic.

Such explanations, relying on intrinsic attributes rather than relations and circumstances, also dominate our views of nature. Last summer, for instance, a bride whose father had died asked the man who received her father’s transplanted heart to give her away at her wedding. It is the heart’s job to love, therefore her father’s feelings must reside in her father’s heart. Genetic determinism is another example. We say that disease, intelligence, psychosis, athletic ability and so on are ‘genetic’, as if inside a person’s cells there were little switches labelled ‘cancer’ or ‘paranoia’ or ‘endurance’. In fact stress, sunlight, exercise and similar influences can change which genes are turned off and on. Biologists are learning that what genes do depends as much on what is happening outside as well as inside the cell.

So why is the ant colony as a factory of specialized workers such a compelling image? First, it’s familiar: a little city of ants, each carrying out its assigned job, is a miniature version of a human city. It’s comforting to imagine that each ant gets up in the morning, drinks its coffee, grabs its briefcase and goes off to work. To envisage how an ant’s task of the moment arises from a pulsing network of brief, meaningless interactions might compel us instead to ponder what really accounts for why each of us has a particular job.

Secondly, in general, explanations are often easier to accept if they invoke internal properties that are invisible and thus, like the Wizard of Oz behind his curtain, do not require any further inspection. In the language of experimental science, the factors that matter but that we can’t see are said to be inside ‘a black box’. We just ignore them while investigating the others that we can see. But to say that someone does something because that is ‘who they are’, ‘how they are wired’, or that it is ‘genetic’ or a result of stuff in their brain, is no explanation at all. It just makes it possible for us to move on by begging the question. Buddha insisted that the ‘doctrine of self’, based on the notion that a person is a collection of fixed properties, is a fallacy. The alternative, that a person is a shifting flux of impressions and feelings, lacking a defined core, is difficult to grasp.

The most fundamental appeal to the idea of division of labor is, perhaps, that it provides a reassuring sense of control. If each individual’s task is not determined by his particular aptitude, then what determines who does what? It is comforting to think that at least some invisible force – and natural selection is a powerful example – has imparted an order that makes everything as it should be. For some religious people, God does this. While divine right makes one man a king, it also gives all the subjects a narrative in which all is just as it ought to be.

Reality is less soothing but much more interesting. A distributed process can be messy and not fully predictable, yet can provide greater resilience and robustness. Such distributed processes might not be ideal as one of the ‘major instruments of social stability’, in the words of the Director of Hatcheries in Brave New World, but they work beautifully in nature, from brains to ant colonies and, increasingly, in our own engineered networks.

Division of labor is a human innovation, drawing on our ability to learn and improve by practice, and to trade goods and services. The growing recognition that natural processes work differently from our symphonies and armies will allow us to see the natural world more clearly. Ant colonies are not factories or fortresses; instead they use simple interactions to adjust to changing conditions. Ant societies, organized by distributed algorithms rather than division of labor, have thrived for more than 130 million years.

Evolution has equipped ants with a distributed system of specialized modules interacting together. These results demonstrate that the navigational intelligence of ants is not in an ability to build a unified representation of the world, but in the way different strategies cleverly interact to produce robust navigation.

We need to keep in mind that this is only our current level of understanding. Even insect brains are far too complex to be fully understood in the near future. Perhaps we will have misjudged the intelligence of ants just as much as we think Simon did. However, we know that continued bottom-up research is the principled way to pull back the veil on insect intelligence, without the specter of anthropomorphism.’

Back to our session. It is good to see someone with a spectacular view of something that we take for simplicity. I will have to research this writer and what else has been done, especially around the ant perception.

Because I believe this is what this lesson is all about, the perception of this CC not as a representation of an ant, but as relative point of understanding on the functional aspect of being an ant.

As for the crop circle, the crop laydown is spectacular. I see very clean edges on all crop laydown features. I also see the graining as I have been seeing in previous CC’s. Because of this energy graining, I will have to name this one ‘Ant Energy’, a philosophical approach. I see STO orientation in the creation of this CC. Another point, this CC was only documented by one individual, but was done with expertise (thank you Steve Alexander). I got ground level images showing clean crop laydown definition, like someone was talking to certain stalks to bend simultaneously and leave the rest unaffected. Real clean. It may have been identified as a hoax, because it was a bug representation. I still see it as STO generated. The leg and antenna extensions are started from the edge of their attaching body and go outward to each square end. Now I first saw this and said STS orientation, because of square plywood sheet makes a good square end. But the deeper I looked at the features, crop laydown, extremely clean edge definition between laid down vs standing crop. This is STO generated, it is just too clean.

That means that the square ends are that way for a reason, to imply some part of the message. Like a square standing perception to this ant energy, possible.

Modeling this is going to be normal. Spherical bodies with protrusions. Should be quick, be back soon …

Well now that I have finished an interpretation of this CC, it looks even less like an ant. The intent is there but my results just look like a bloated bug. Makes me think that it truly is, just a symbol. Now my mother wanted me to show it upside down, with the antenna (or mandibles) pointing downward. Kind of looks like a totem pole in this position, don’t you think?

Last fact: if you collected all creatures, insects, people, and whatever else there is, counted them all, three out of four would be ants. Respect is in their numbers.

Interesting lot of knowledge with a simple symbol, make you think there is so much to be said of being part of the colony, a multi-tasker that works to a greater need. We all need to be part of this reality, and thinking like an ant may have its advantages as we move forward. See you all next time, Haiku …