Non-Invasive Brain-to-Brain Interface

[Sagittarius]

Transcranial focused ultrasound (FUS) is capable of modulating the neural activity of specific brain regions, with a potential role as a non-invasive computer-to-brain interface (CBI). In conjunction with the use of brain-to-computer interface (BCI) techniques that translate brain function to generate computer commands, we investigated the feasibility of using the FUS-based CBI to non-invasively establish a functional link between the brains of different species (i.e. human and Sprague-Dawley rat), thus creating a brain-to-brain interface (BBI).

The interface was achieved at 94.0±3.0% accuracy, with a time delay of 1.59±1.07 sec from the thought-initiation to the creation of the tail movement. Our results demonstrate the feasibility of a computer-mediated BBI that links central neural functions between two biological entities, which may confer unexplored opportunities in the study of neuroscience with potential implications for therapeutic applications.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/...0060410#s5

This is quite cool. I wonder how much technology like this will affect the formation of social memory complexes, we already see technology evolving towards maintaining constant connection with each other.

So could this be an example of spirit demonstrating to the mind/body the concept of the mbs complex. I.e technology is the development of rationale interaction between body/mind, this technology in turn expresses concepts of the spirit?

[zenmaster]

we already see technology evolving towards maintaining constant connection with each other.

Yeah, but is it a real connection or merely a means to share ideas complete with layers of persona which is a false face of self? http://news.discovery.com/human/psycholo...130814.htm
I do not see our current technology doing anything to promote genuine connection which necessarily requires development of personality to a certain level. How do our communication mechanisms reveal our natures to ourselves for acceptance? Sharing info certainly makes us think, but about what and to what end?

[Sagittarius]

we already see technology evolving towards maintaining constant connection with each other.

Yeah, but is it a real connection or merely a means to share ideas complete with layers of persona which is a false face of self? http://news.discovery.com/human/psycholo...130814.htm
I do not see our current technology doing anything to promote genuine connection which necessarily requires development of personality to a certain level. How do our communication mechanisms reveal our natures to ourselves for acceptance? Sharing info certainly makes us think, but about what and to what end?

Yeh I know what you mean. The technology is never going to take away the need for developing the personality and similar problems to interaction in person are exasperated and even made more severe in some cases (the role of anonymity and perceived lack of consequence)

I found with myself exploring these personas that arise in me when I'am communicating through the internet or that I find being communicated through the internet helped me develop the personality greatly I would say.

I didn't look at the internet that way before I started consciously seeking. So it's hard to compare my life with the internet and without it and how beneficial it has really been.

[zenmaster]

Well part of that personality development entails making real choices and confrontation of catalyst. Regardless of the perceived ability to "connect", we are often seeking distraction from such uncomfortable confrontation. And so distortions become compartmentalized, or buried and confused through inauthentic popular convention and with what we are led to believe we think we want, rather than what is essential to health and a deeper experience.

Typically that which leads to health must, consciously, be either explicated or revealed through its feeling of harmony as these are the two "rational" modes of creating and evaluating all experience. And that integrative work necessarily entails addressing conflict - which is deemed unpleasant and not a responsibility to oneself and to others, rather than being seen as a problem-solving challenge. And so while there is an unconscious desire for health and a dissatisfaction due to lack of fulfillment, as yet there is no social convention which even indirectly supports the very self development which would remedy that condition.

Why is the "blue-ray" vibration synonymous with both communication and honesty? Is communication and honesty actually the same thing? And if that is the case, then can you truly have one without the other?

[Bring4th_Austin]

we already see technology evolving towards maintaining constant connection with each other.

Yeah, but is it a real connection or merely a means to share ideas complete with layers of persona which is a false face of self? http://news.discovery.com/human/psycholo...130814.htm
I do not see our current technology doing anything to promote genuine connection which necessarily requires development of personality to a certain level. How do our communication mechanisms reveal our natures to ourselves for acceptance? Sharing info certainly makes us think, but about what and to what end?

Are you supposing that there exists a potential for connection as you are defining it?

If yes, do you suppose that this potential, being an aspect of self, could be expressed through technology, an extension of self? Perhaps the technology highlighted in OP?

If not, then isn't our current technology just as useful as any other extension of self for exploring the self and ultimately connecting? A tool whose potential is not fully recognized because our social mind simply is not at that stage of development yet.

Why is the "blue-ray" vibration synonymous with both communication and honesty? Is communication and honesty actually the same thing? And if that is the case, then can you truly have one without the other?

Do you have thoughts on these questions?

It is something I have been contemplating lately.

Take a scenario where a person is very angry. If they shout "I'm angry!" and then punch you in the face, they're honestly communicating how they are feeling. At that moment their identity is anger and the anger was expressed.

Is this indicative of a blue ray activation through honesty?

I have to think that it is not, because someone could be angry and express it honestly without have activated the heart chakra which is prerequisite to potential blue activation. And even if green is active, blue requires honesty to activate. Honesty here cannot mean honesty in the sense of the angry person clearly communicating their anger, because plenty of people do that, yet honesty is something which is supposedly difficult for us even after green activation.

I think that the linkage of blue ray, honesty, and communication lays in the fact that blue ray is that realization of the true nature of the self being communicated. Ra says the blue ray is free communication with the self and with other-self. If there is no honest communication of the self (inward realization) then there can be no honest communication to other-self (outward realization) This outer realization only being possible when looking inward, the communication of anger is a completely outward expression, lacking the honest communication of inner perception.

The nature of blue ray is also outgoing as well as inpouring. I assume that the inpouring and outgoing must be balanced, and the honest expression of anger ignores incoming communication. Inpouring seems to require willingness and ability to integrate other's expressions of self within our own self.

Essentially, I think "honest communication" in the blue ray sense is that communication of the true nature of self we have found as we gaze inward wielding acceptance.

[Sagittarius]

we already see technology evolving towards maintaining constant connection with each other.

Yeah, but is it a real connection or merely a means to share ideas complete with layers of persona which is a false face of self? http://news.discovery.com/human/psycholo...130814.htm
I do not see our current technology doing anything to promote genuine connection which necessarily requires development of personality to a certain level. How do our communication mechanisms reveal our natures to ourselves for acceptance? Sharing info certainly makes us think, but about what and to what end?

Are you supposing that there exists a potential for connection as you are defining it?

If yes, do you suppose that this potential, being an aspect of self, could be expressed through technology, an extension of self? Perhaps the technology highlighted in OP?

If not, then isn't our current technology just as useful as any other extension of self for exploring the self and ultimately connecting? A tool whose potential is not fully recognized because our social mind simply is not at that stage of development yet.

Why is the "blue-ray" vibration synonymous with both communication and honesty? Is communication and honesty actually the same thing? And if that is the case, then can you truly have one without the other?

Do you have thoughts on these questions?

It is something I have been contemplating lately.

Take a scenario where a person is very angry. If they shout "I'm angry!" and then punch you in the face, they're honestly communicating how they are feeling. At that moment their identity is anger and the anger was expressed.

Is this indicative of a blue ray activation through honesty?

I have to think that it is not, because someone could be angry and express it honestly without have activated the heart chakra which is prerequisite to potential blue activation. And even if green is active, blue requires honesty to activate. Honesty here cannot mean honesty in the sense of the angry person clearly communicating their anger, because plenty of people do that, yet honesty is something which is supposedly difficult for us even after green activation.

I think that the linkage of blue ray, honesty, and communication lays in the fact that blue ray is that realization of the true nature of the self being communicated. Ra says the blue ray is free communication with the self and with other-self. If there is no honest communication of the self (inward realization) then there can be no honest communication to other-self (outward realization) This outer realization only being possible when looking inward, the communication of anger is a completely outward expression, lacking the honest communication of inner perception.

The nature of blue ray is also outgoing as well as inpouring. I assume that the inpouring and outgoing must be balanced, and the honest expression of anger ignores incoming communication. Inpouring seems to require willingness and ability to integrate other's expressions of self within our own self.

Essentially, I think "honest communication" in the blue ray sense is that communication of the true nature of self we have found as we gaze inward wielding acceptance.

Yeh I would say a self who would express there honest communication of anger with violence is accessing say the red ray sub plane of blue possibly. The key term Ra uses I think is the emphasis on free communication. Someone who is blue ray activated can give and receive information through communication without any of the unbalanced lenses through the lower chakra's. I.e there is no price with the information no fractured intention.

So no I don't think communication and honesty are the same thing. For example the above person can communicate but there is no honesty with true self in the communication thus it is distorted in that incomplete red ray/blue ray.

---

Well part of that personality development entails making real choices and confrontation of catalyst. Regardless of the perceived ability to "connect", we are often seeking distraction from such uncomfortable confrontation. And so distortions become compartmentalized, or buried and confused through inauthentic popular convention and with what we are led to believe we think we want, rather than what is essential to health and a deeper experience.

Typically that which leads to health must, consciously, be either explicated or revealed through its feeling of harmony as these are the two "rational" modes of creating and evaluating all experience. And that integrative work necessarily entails addressing conflict - which is deemed unpleasant and not a responsibility to oneself and to others, rather than being seen as a problem-solving challenge. And so while there is an unconscious desire for health and a dissatisfaction due to lack of fulfillment, as yet there is no social convention which even indirectly supports the very self development which would remedy that condition.

Why is the "blue-ray" vibration synonymous with both communication and honesty? Is communication and honesty actually the same thing? And if that is the case, then can you truly have one without the other?

It's very difficult for non-wanderers I'am guessing to access ray's high enough to intuitively and rationally make there way through the highly distorted social system.

I have just been reading some of Ken Wilber's Integral System. His suggestion of the male and female right of passage being only half complete is something that needs to be addressed. A more refined and applied version is needed that is accepted and can be proven to be integral. So it can be taught in school and the whole self is revealed earlier, rather then every male and female having to deal with the surprise when the gender roles you had believed and told to be absolute or the norm just completely flip.

[Hototo]

Any faster form of communication will always make the self more liable to use the *laughs hysterically and makes a very noticable air quote sign* "Real" "Persona".



As if most of the people even had the time or the love of self to develop a real persona that has at least a possibility of lasting outside of this incarnative period and not be the inpersonal self, but I digres.

[reeay]

What ever happened to good old face-to-face interaction, verbal and non-verbal communication lol.
Person 1: *sends messages thru brain* 'Do I look fat in this dress?' 'I'm worried you don't find me desireable' 'he/she better say I look good'

Person 2: *sends message thru brain* 'No honey you look good' 'I don't think green is your color' 'Sheesh how do I get out of this???'

Person 1: *slaps the s*** out of person 2 due to confusion*

[Sagittarius]

A troupe of monkey's all linked to me would be pretty cool. Would never have to clean myself or change the channel again hahaha.

[zenmaster]

we already see technology evolving towards maintaining constant connection with each other.

Yeah, but is it a real connection or merely a means to share ideas complete with layers of persona which is a false face of self? http://news.discovery.com/human/psycholo...130814.htm
I do not see our current technology doing anything to promote genuine connection which necessarily requires development of personality to a certain level. How do our communication mechanisms reveal our natures to ourselves for acceptance? Sharing info certainly makes us think, but about what and to what end?

Are you supposing that there exists a potential for connection as you are defining it?

Well yes, the potential connection exists within "mind".

If yes, do you suppose that this potential, being an aspect of self, could be expressed through technology, an extension of self? Perhaps the technology highlighted in OP?

The actual connection is of mind. The technology provides cues or some focus of thought.

If not, then isn't our current technology just as useful as any other extension of self for exploring the self and ultimately connecting? A tool whose potential is not fully recognized because our social mind simply is not at that stage of development yet.

The social mind as the "planetary mind" has already made something of that stage's vibration, the potential access has existed for a long time. The limitation really is the personal mind.

Why is the "blue-ray" vibration synonymous with both communication and honesty? Is communication and honesty actually the same thing? And if that is the case, then can you truly have one without the other?

Do you have thoughts on these questions?

It is something I have been contemplating lately.

Take a scenario where a person is very angry. If they shout "I'm angry!" and then punch you in the face, they're honestly communicating how they are feeling. At that moment their identity is anger and the anger was expressed.

It's an honest expression of selfhood. That is, the "you" that is present and conscious in that moment of communication. If that level is not of the blue-ray or higher vibration, there is no transpersonal or intersubjective communication possible. It is the identity of self - the "ego" - still being reflected back on itself for outward expression. Since it has not transcended itself, it is not fully present and not fully itself - that is, not fully supported by sufficiently actualized (balanced) yellow and green ray.

Is this indicative of a blue ray activation through honesty?

No.

I have to think that it is not, because someone could be angry and express it honestly without have activated the heart chakra which is prerequisite to potential blue activation. And even if green is active, blue requires honesty to activate. Honesty here cannot mean honesty in the sense of the angry person clearly communicating their anger, because plenty of people do that, yet honesty is something which is supposedly difficult for us even after green activation.

It's difficult at that early point, because green activation (which is the result of yellow balancing) is not remotely the same as green balancing.

I think that the linkage of blue ray, honesty, and communication lays in the fact that blue ray is that realization of the true nature of the self being communicated. Ra says the blue ray is free communication with the self and with other-self. If there is no honest communication of the self (inward realization) then there can be no honest communication to other-self (outward realization) This outer realization only being possible when looking inward, the communication of anger is a completely outward expression, lacking the honest communication of inner perception.

Or in other words, it's a completely inward expression communicated outward. That's what a "projection" is, and why anger epitomizes the projection.

The nature of blue ray is also outgoing as well as inpouring. I assume that the inpouring and outgoing must be balanced, and the honest expression of anger ignores incoming communication. Inpouring seems to require willingness and ability to integrate other's expressions of self within our own self.

Essentially, I think "honest communication" in the blue ray sense is that communication of the true nature of self we have found as we gaze inward wielding acceptance.

It's just being able to make space for sharing your mind. With blue-ray communication, there can be no "ego" as a dominating, hoping, fearing, controlling seat of consciousness.

---

Yeh I would say a self who would express there honest communication of anger with violence is accessing say the red ray sub plane of blue possibly. The key term Ra uses I think is the emphasis on free communication. Someone who is blue ray activated can give and receive information through communication without any of the unbalanced lenses through the lower chakra's. I.e there is no price with the information no fractured intention.

So no I don't think communication and honesty are the same thing. For example the above person can communicate but there is no honesty with true self in the communication thus it is distorted in that incomplete red ray/blue ray.

If one is talking into a mirror, it is not possible for one to be on the "same page" with another person. They are necessarily not seeing nor expressing a significant portion of their underlying idea, because the part of themselves which would be capable of doing that simply does not exist yet. So if the idea is unconscious, and the expression of the idea is unconscious, then so is the nature of the communication. If one thinks of an idea and there is zero possibility it can be miscommunicated or distorted, that is the nature of blue-ray vibration.

[Sagittarius]

I think I see what you mean.Just to clarify when you say zero possibility to be miscommunicated or distorted, is that more reliant on the individual with the idea in mind or the way others interpret it.

So say the idea that all is one. A blue ray vibration of that concept coming from the individual with the idea would be communicated so that the least amount of distortion could be interpreted by another, to do this one has to know the full extent of the underlying idea. Basically how Ra tried to communicate in the channellings. This would be an example of the continuous process even in higher densities, I.e Ra is still learning how to use it most effectively.

[Bring4th_Austin]

I do not see our current technology doing anything to promote genuine connection which necessarily requires development of personality to a certain level. How do our communication mechanisms reveal our natures to ourselves for acceptance? Sharing info certainly makes us think, but about what and to what end?

If not, then isn't our current technology just as useful as any other extension of self for exploring the self and ultimately connecting? A tool whose potential is not fully recognized because our social mind simply is not at that stage of development yet.

The social mind as the "planetary mind" has already made something of that stage's vibration, the potential access has existed for a long time. The limitation really is the personal mind.

What exactly do you mean "made something?"

And if it is a collective of personal minds that are limited, doesn't the social mind play a role?


edit: fixed formatting

[zenmaster]

I think I see what you mean.Just to clarify when you say zero possibility to be miscommunicated or distorted, is that more reliant on the individual with the idea in mind or the way others interpret it.

The thought is co-established as if the two minds were one. In fact, in that thought there is an awareness of the mutual experience, so one's following and/or leading is evident. While the experience from which each is interpreting is unique, what experience one does have reflects the intention in a precise manner. Exactly what experience needs to come to bear on the idea is what is expressed. That is, it is the shared idea is whole to the core. So where one individual's experience may have more refinements or different symbolism or analogies on a matter, it is always the case that each knows the other's flow of consciousness. This mutual consciousness is autonomically orchestrated as the stream of ideas is suggested.

So say the idea that all is one. A blue ray vibration of that concept coming from the individual with the idea would be communicated so that the least amount of distortion could be interpreted by another, to do this one has to know the full extent of the underlying idea.

They can't know the full extent of the underlying idea. Instead what's going on with regards to the idea, is that there has been a "road constructed" from what one has consciously developed of self which one has contributed to the idea (the idea *is* self). When that contribution is sufficiently supported up to green-ray, then it can be communicated in blue ray.

Basically how Ra tried to communicate in the channellings. This would be an example of the continuous process even in higher densities, I.e Ra is still learning how to use it most effectively.

It's all information which is itself "alive".

---

What exactly do you mean "made something?"

You have a vibration provided. And from that vibration you use the principle of "mind" to co create an actual "mind" which is a pattern of expression.

And if it is a collective of personal minds that are limited, doesn't the social mind play a role?

The social mind is unconscious (of itself) at present. That's why it's the "collective unconscious". However, all of the information of this vibration from individuals is there and can be accessed. That info supports the planetary construct which we draw upon as a resource.

[Sagittarius]

I think I see what you mean.Just to clarify when you say zero possibility to be miscommunicated or distorted, is that more reliant on the individual with the idea in mind or the way others interpret it.

The thought is co-established as if the two minds were one. In fact, in that thought there is an awareness of the mutual experience, so one's following and/or leading is evident. While the experience from which each is interpreting is unique, what experience one does have reflects the intention in a precise manner. Exactly what experience needs to come to bear on the idea is what is expressed. That is, it is the shared idea is whole to the core. So where one individual's experience may have more refinements or different symbolism or analogies on a matter, it is always the case that each knows the other's flow of consciousness. This mutual consciousness is autonomically orchestrated as the stream of ideas is suggested.

So say the idea that all is one. A blue ray vibration of that concept coming from the individual with the idea would be communicated so that the least amount of distortion could be interpreted by another, to do this one has to know the full extent of the underlying idea.

They can't know the full extent of the underlying idea. Instead what's going on with regards to the idea, is that there has been a "road constructed" from what one has consciously developed of self which one has contributed to the idea (the idea *is* self). When that contribution is sufficiently supported up to green-ray, then it can be communicated in blue ray.

Basically how Ra tried to communicate in the channellings. This would be an example of the continuous process even in higher densities, I.e Ra is still learning how to use it most effectively.

It's all information which is itself "alive".

I see, so the only idea one can have is obviously about self. As one experiences the stream of ideas about self the intention behind the idea becomes more apparent. I'am assuming service to self and service to others are two examples of intentions that are made clear to self through this reflection?

[zenmaster]

I see, so the only idea one can have is obviously about self.

Yes, and until "green ray" it is not even possible to get a clear awareness of that which is not self (hence the "dweller" phenomenon).

As one experiences the stream of ideas about self the intention behind the idea becomes more apparent. I'am assuming service to self and service to others are two examples of intentions that are made clear to self through this reflection?

When I was saying intentions, I mean the focus of the idea. This is all purposefully generic. There is not revelation of morality other than I don't think it's possible to transcend ego to that degree while also being "negative" here.

---

As if most of the people even had the time or the love of self to develop a real persona

Um, persona is a false mask.

[Sagittarius]

I see, so the only idea one can have is obviously about self.

Yes, and until "green ray" it is not even possible to get a clear awareness of that which is not self (hence the "dweller" phenomenon).

As one experiences the stream of ideas about self the intention behind the idea becomes more apparent. I'am assuming service to self and service to others are two examples of intentions that are made clear to self through this reflection?

When I was saying intentions, I mean the focus of the idea. This is all purposefully generic. There is not revelation of morality other than I don't think it's possible to transcend ego to that degree while also being "negative" here.

---

As if most of the people even had the time or the love of self to develop a real persona

Um, persona is a false mask.

Okay that makes it a bit clearer. I think I'am starting to get the "idea" now hehe.

So 2 people who say become friends are mutually co-creating because the thought of self was formed in our whole uni-sized awareness. There is a mutual awareness of this unconsciously here so you always get a sense even if it's small that you should lead in the focus of the thought i.e a mixed interpretation of the varying levels of self depending on the development of the individual. Or when to follow another's focus because you are both co-creating catalyst opportunities for both because both are 1. This applies to everyone with everyone else on varying levels, the people you come into contact with more so then the ones you never meet or hear about. Although all is conducted by the nervous system of all that is.

Also just wondering what you mean by the dweller phenomenon.

[zenmaster]

Everyone is mutually co-creating.

Also just wondering what you mean by the dweller phenomenon.

The so-called "initiation" experiences as self finally gets to peek back at its interiority.

[Sagittarius]

Everyone is mutually co-creating.

Also just wondering what you mean by the dweller phenomenon.

The so-called "initiation" experiences as self finally gets to peek back at its interiority.

Ah I see. Thanks for the help and patience Zen much appreciated.