<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Michael Chorost</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog</link>
	<description>Cyborg Thoughts</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:00:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Why I Walked Away From The Word &#8220;Cyborg.&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2013/03/why-i-walked-away-from-the-word-cyborg/</link>
		<comments>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2013/03/why-i-walked-away-from-the-word-cyborg/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:00:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Chorost</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/?p=293</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In my first book, Rebuilt, I used the word “cyborg” 157 times. Rebuilt was about going completely deaf and having a computer (that is, a cochlear implant) installed in my head to make my auditory nerve transmit sound signals to my brain. The book was about what it was like to lose a part of [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In my first book, <a href="http://www.michaelchorost.com">Rebuilt</a>, I used the word “cyborg” 157 times. Rebuilt was about going completely deaf and having a computer (that is, a cochlear implant) installed in my head to make my auditory nerve transmit sound signals to my brain. The book was about what it was like to lose a part of one’s body and have it replaced with silicon circuitry. It came out in 2005, and did well; one reviewer called Rebuilt “the first cyborg memoir.”</p>
<p>In my second book, <a href="http://www.michaelchorost.com">World Wide Mind</a>, I used the word “cyborg” only once. Yet World Wide Mind is even more about human-machine fusions than Rebuilt. It’s about the possibility of communicating directly from one brain to another using implanted devices. I wrote at length about exotic emerging technologies like optogenetics, which reveals and controls neural activity in unprecedented detail. Optogenetics has already transformed how neuroscientists study the brain.</p>
<p>So why did I use the word “cyborg” only once? The simple answer is that I needed the word for my first book. When I got to my second, I didn’t need it anymore.</p>
<p>A few weeks after I went deaf, my audiologist handed me a cochlear implant that had been opened up so that the circuitry was visible. It was shocking. This thing, this circuit board, this maze of chips and wires and resistors, was going to go inside my head. Permanently. That was scary enough, but what was even more intimidating was knowing that it would forever change the way I perceived the world. It wouldn’t give me normal hearing. It wouldn’t even give me back the poor and partial hearing I’d had since birth. Things would sound completely different in a way that no one could describe to me. <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/world-wide-mind/201303/why-i-walked-away-the-word-cyborg">Read on..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2013/03/why-i-walked-away-from-the-word-cyborg/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What Kind of Religion Is There for Nonbelievers?</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2013/01/what-kind-of-religion-is-there-for-nonbelievers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2013/01/what-kind-of-religion-is-there-for-nonbelievers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:09:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Chorost</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/?p=290</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nonbelievers have often denied that any meaning can be found in the universe&#8217;s existence. They say there is no reason for the universe, or us: we just happened to show up. In The First Three Minutes the physicist Steven Weinberg wrote, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless” (154). In Wonderful Life, the paleontologist [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: #ffffff;">Nonbelievers have often denied that any meaning can be found in the universe&#8217;s existence. They say there is no reason for the universe, or us: we just happened to show up. In <em>The First Three Minutes</em> the physicist Steven Weinberg wrote, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless” (154). In <em>Wonderful Life</em>, the paleontologist Steven Jay Gould wrote that “we are only an afterthought, a kind of cosmic accident, just one bauble on the Christmas tree of evolution” (44).</p>
<p style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: #ffffff;">But I think nonbelievers can do better. Much, much better, in fact. There is a way for nonbelievers to see transcendent meaning and purpose in the cosmos, and in human life.</p>
<p style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: #ffffff;">To get there, nonbelievers have to show that that meaning emerges inevitably, inexorably, out of the basic physical processes of the universe, and that it is not optional or accidental. They have to show that it provides a guide for action here on Earth, that is, it has to help us make <a class="pt-basics-link" style="color: #333333; text-decoration: initial; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; border-bottom-color: #999999;" title="Psychology Today looks at Morality" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/morality">moral</a> choices. They have to show that it offers a coherent explanation for suffering. Finally, they have to show that that meaning is good enough, interesting enough, and rewarding enough to be worth teaching and celebrating. That it provides occasion for reverence and – just possibly – prayer&#8230;<a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/world-wide-mind/201301/what-kind-religion-is-there-nonbelievers">Read more</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2013/01/what-kind-of-religion-is-there-for-nonbelievers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the Brain Just a Giant Switching Machine?</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2013/01/is-the-brain-just-a-giant-switching-machine/</link>
		<comments>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2013/01/is-the-brain-just-a-giant-switching-machine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:00:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Chorost</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/?p=287</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I’m posting my response to an interesting question posed by Silas Busch, a student at Bard College who attended a lecture I gave at Bard in January 2013. Mr. Busch gave me permission to post our exchange. Both emails are slightly edited for conciseness. Dear Michael, Do you think consciousness can be maintained in individuals [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: #ffffff;"><em>I’m posting my response to an interesting question posed by Silas Busch, a student at Bard College who attended a lecture I gave at Bard in January 2013. Mr. Busch gave me permission to post our exchange. Both emails are slightly edited for conciseness.</em></p>
<p style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-size: 13px;">Dear Michael,</span></p>
<p style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-size: 13px;">Do you think consciousness can be maintained in individuals who, hypothetically, have parts of their <a class="pt-basics-link" style="color: #333333; text-decoration: initial; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; border-bottom-color: #999999;" title="Psychology Today looks at Neuroscience" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/neuroscience">brain</a>replaced by computer chips? I ask because I took a <a class="pt-basics-link" style="color: #333333; text-decoration: initial; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; border-bottom-color: #999999;" title="Psychology Today looks at Cognition" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/cognition">cognitive</a> science course during the fall semester in which we discussed the hypothetical &#8220;Zombie Problem&#8221; proposed by Searle in 1992. The long and short of it is that he proposed that if parts of a brain were replaced by silicon computer chips (albeit ones that perfectly replicate the functions of the natural neuronal make up) the mind (ie consciousness) would still eventually be lost, even if external function appeared to remain normal. Essentially the question is: is consciousness a result of morphology or matter? Can a brain with consciousness be made of inorganic matter, or different organic matter than it is made of?</span></p>
<p style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;">Silas Busch, Bard College</span></p>
<p style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-size: 13px;">Dear Silas,</span></p>
<p style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-size: 13px;">I&#8217;ve thought a lot about that question. Certainly a great many people assume that the brain is fundamentally a giant collection of switches, and therefore it (and any part of it) could in principle be replaced with any other set of switches, regardless of their physical <a class="pt-basics-link" style="color: #333333; text-decoration: initial; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; border-bottom-color: #999999;" title="Psychology Today looks at Environmental Psychology" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/environmental-psychology">nature</a>. From that perspective, the answer to your question is simple: yes.</span></p>
<p style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-size: 13px;">But I think the assumption that the brain is just a giant collection of switches overlooks several important points. For one thing, it assumes that a neuron is fundamentally just a simple switching machine, one that can easily be reverse-engineered. It just counts up the number of incoming signals and decides whether to fire or not based on those signals. But there is in fact a great deal of computation going on within individual neurons. The molecular reactions in the cytoplasm and membranes are fantastically complex. I once heard a professor at the University of Pennsylvania characterize the neuron as “a supercomputer in its own right.” If that is true, then the output of a neuron, while simple in itself &#8211;  0 or 1 &#8212; is the outcome of a complex process about which we know very little. And if we know very little about it, it&#8217;s going to be hard for us to replace it with an equivalent switch.</span></p>
<p style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-size: 13px;">You also have to consider the fact&#8230;<a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/world-wide-mind/201301/is-the-brain-just-giant-switching-machine">Read more</a>.</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2013/01/is-the-brain-just-a-giant-switching-machine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How To Play Video Games Peacefully</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2013/01/how-to-play-video-games-peacefully/</link>
		<comments>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2013/01/how-to-play-video-games-peacefully/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 00:57:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Chorost</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/?p=284</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Now that I&#8217;m 48, I&#8217;m less interested in adrenaline and macho fantasies of power and destruction. My focus has changed. What I now most enjoy about games like Half-Life 2 is that they are spectacularly beautiful and immersive. They are fully rendered, photorealistic worlds in which you can walk around and peer in all directions, [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now that I&#8217;m 48, I&#8217;m less interested in adrenaline and macho fantasies of power and destruction. My focus has changed. What I now most enjoy about games like <em>Half-Life 2</em> is that they are spectacularly beautiful and immersive. They are fully rendered, photorealistic worlds in which you can walk around and peer in all directions, enjoying the way water is rendered in flowing brooks and the play of sunlight off of rock and wood. When you turn on a flashlight, shadows move in exactly the way you would expect. The game’s physics are eerily real: there’s one point where you have to pile cinderblocks on a seesaw ramp to get it to tilt up so you can reach a ledge. The ramp teeters back and forth exactly the way a real one would. It is so much fun just to walk around looking at things.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I wanted to play Half-Life 2 without killing anybody&#8230;<a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/world-wide-mind/201301/how-play-video-games-peacefully">Read more</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2013/01/how-to-play-video-games-peacefully/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can science shed light on &#8220;Proof of Heaven&#8221;?</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2013/01/can-science-shed-light-on-proof-of-heaven/</link>
		<comments>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2013/01/can-science-shed-light-on-proof-of-heaven/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 00:55:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Chorost</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/?p=282</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve always been interested in phenomena at the borders of what we know, where there&#8217;s some evidence but not enough to be truly convincing, such as UFOs and near death experiences. These are the kinds of things that, if found to be objectively real, would completely upend our perspective on the universe. I always like [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve always been interested in phenomena at the borders of what we know, where there&#8217;s some evidence but not enough to be truly convincing, such as UFOs and near death experiences. These are the kinds of things that, if found to be objectively real, would completely upend our perspective on the universe.</p>
<p>I always like having my perspective completely upended. So I keep a weather eye on such things, hoping someday for better evidence.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve just read Eben Alexander&#8217;s recently published book Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon&#8217;s Journey Into The Afterlife. Dr. Alexander tells a vivid story of nearly dying of meningitis, during which, he says, he experienced a full-blown near-death experience (NDE) in which he visited a divine realm filled with love and knowledge.</p>
<p>I have no doubt that Alexander sincerely believes that he had the experience; a neurosurgeon who worked at Harvard Medical School isn&#8217;t going to be a charlatan. He offers what is, within the story, evidence that it really happened: he met a woman whom he later found was his birth sister, now deceased.</p>
<p>The problem with such claims is that there&#8217;s no way to verify them externally. We have only Alexander&#8217;s word to go on. Here&#8217;s what would do it for me: a person having an NDE coming back with an equation, and an explanation of it, that could not possibly be known by science at the time. If, for example, an NDE in 1900 returned speaking of an equation where energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, that would be impressive. Or if one returned today with an equation unifying quantum mechanics with relativity, or explaining why the fine-structure constants of the universe are they are, or why the universe has only three large-scale spatial dimensions, that would impress me.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s look at this idea a little more closely&#8230;<a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/world-wide-mind/201212/can-science-shed-light-proof-heaven">Read more</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2013/01/can-science-shed-light-on-proof-of-heaven/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How To End Gun Violence</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2012/12/how-to-end-gun-violence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2012/12/how-to-end-gun-violence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:43:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Chorost</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/?p=278</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gun enthusiasts frequently argue that only armed ordinary citizens could stop mass murderers. “Why didn’t the teacher have a gun?” they ask. No one’s seemed to offer a cogent response to that argument, apart from pointing out the difficulty of shooting only the assailant in a room full of panicking people. That’s a good response, [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gun enthusiasts frequently argue that only armed ordinary citizens could stop mass murderers. “Why didn’t the teacher have a gun?” they ask. No one’s seemed to offer a cogent response to that argument, apart from pointing out the difficulty of shooting only the assailant in a room full of panicking people. That’s a good response, but it’s not quite enough. Here’s a better one&#8230;.<a href="https://my.psychologytoday.com/blog/world-wide-mind/201212/how-end-gun-violence">Read more</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2012/12/how-to-end-gun-violence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Do Super-Earths Trap the Civilizations On Them?</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2012/11/do-super-earths-trap-the-civilizations-on-them/</link>
		<comments>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2012/11/do-super-earths-trap-the-civilizations-on-them/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:23:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Chorost</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/?p=273</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We already found seven super-Earths in habitable zones. It may not be long before we find one that has a gravity like ours and a tolerable orbital velocity&#8230;Read more.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We already found seven super-Earths in habitable zones. It may not be long before we find one that has a gravity like ours and a tolerable orbital velocity&#8230;<a href="http://bit.ly/TZCSLf">Read more</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2012/11/do-super-earths-trap-the-civilizations-on-them/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Do Super-Earths Have Too Much Gravity For Us?</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2012/11/do-super-earths-have-too-much-gravity-for-us/</link>
		<comments>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2012/11/do-super-earths-have-too-much-gravity-for-us/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:20:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Chorost</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/?p=269</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It’s amazingly easy to imagine a super-Earth with a comfortable gravity. If a planet had eight Earth masses and 2.83 times the radius, its surface gravity would be exactly 1g. Read more&#8230;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It’s amazingly easy to imagine a super-Earth with a comfortable gravity. If a planet had eight Earth masses and 2.83 times the radius, its surface gravity would be exactly 1g. <a href="https://my.psychologytoday.com/blog/world-wide-mind/201211/do-super-earths-have-too-much-gravity-us">Read more&#8230;</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2012/11/do-super-earths-have-too-much-gravity-for-us/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Status-Quo Election, But Much Cause For Hope.</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2012/11/a-status-quo-election-but-much-cause-for-hope/</link>
		<comments>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2012/11/a-status-quo-election-but-much-cause-for-hope/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 18:17:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Chorost</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/?p=266</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although Obama won the 2012 election by a large Electoral College margin, the popular vote was close, 50% to 48%, and the makeup of Congress has changed very little. Numerically, there has been little real change. It has been a status-quo election. That said, some of the worst Tea Party fanatics have been voted out, [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although Obama won the 2012 election by a large Electoral College margin, the popular vote was close, 50% to 48%, and the makeup of Congress has changed very little. Numerically, there has been little real change. It has been a status-quo election.</p>
<p>That said, some of the worst Tea Party fanatics have been voted out, including Richard Mourdock, Todd Akin, and Joe Walsh. Allan West appears to have lost, and Bachmann held on by only 1%, whereas she won by 13% in 2010. And some strong progressive Democrats have won, including Sherrod Brown, Tammy Baldwin, Tammy Duckworth, and Elizabeth Warren. At least we now have a somewhat better Congress, and we no longer have to <a title="Psychology Today looks at Fear" href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/fear">fear</a> that the Supreme Court will become even more stacked with right-wing judicial activists. Yesterday was a good day for progressive hopes. <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/world-wide-mind/201211/status-quo-election-much-cause-hope">Read more&#8230;</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2012/11/a-status-quo-election-but-much-cause-for-hope/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Revolution We Can&#8217;t Imagine</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2012/11/the-revolution-we-cant-imagine/</link>
		<comments>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2012/11/the-revolution-we-cant-imagine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:14:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Chorost</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/?p=264</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The future isn’t going to be about making existing human abilities better. It’s going to be about enabling people to do new things – things we can barely imagine now. Read more&#8230;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The future isn’t going to be about making existing human abilities better. It’s going to be about enabling people to do new things – things we can barely imagine now. <a href="https://my.psychologytoday.com/blog/world-wide-mind/201211/the-revolution-we-cant-imagine">Read more&#8230;</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.michaelchorost.com/blog/2012/11/the-revolution-we-cant-imagine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
