Thursday, 13 August 2015

Darwin's (REAL) Theory

Evolution Of A Theory
Dawin Exposed
hoax darwin_bird_brained
The so-called 'Theory of Evolution' has produced a debate that has raged since Charles Darwin ever-so-hesitantly proposed this theory in his book, ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection’ and that was 1859 –
This debate EVOLVED into a very serious clash of "Creation vs. Evolution".
Let's begin with Darwin's "evidence" for his theory.
Take a close look at each bird, all of them finches seen by Darwin while he was traveling through the Galapagos Islands, about 150 years ago:
hoax darwins_bird_brain
Darwin had theorized these birds were all from one common bird ancestor whose offspring had somehow managed to change the shape of their beaks to adapt to their various different environments.
His problem contained a number of false assumptions, not the least of which, is the fact that all of these birds were alive at the same time.
Another problem of his theory was shot down by a documentary filmed for educational TV and aired in October of 1998. I personally watched this program which was intended to deal with the subject of 'Global Warming' and 'El Nino' (a strange weather phenomenon causing weird conditions at various times throughout the year in Central and South America).
During the program, the announcer was talking about the amazing changes of the beaks of the birds on the Galapagos Islands.
Due to the severe changes in the eco-system the foliage had changed drastically, but at the same time so had the beaks of these finches.
The announcer mentions that in less than a few months (not millions of years) these beaks had changed so rapidly, the newl baby birds hatched out already equipped with the new beaks ready to handle the changes to their surroundings.
How is that possible? Miracle?
He even commented this would have a big impact on Darwin's Theory.
Let's take a look one theory regarding the neck of the giraffe and then think about it for a second..
HOAX Evolution_of_long_neck_in_giraff_as_per_Darwinism_thumb7
Is this really likely?
Take a minute to consider what these guys are offering to us. The original animal was small and got bigger, just do it could reach the food. Uh, that might make more sense if they said it was tall and got smaller as the food got closer to the ground.
Why?
Because if even one generation couldn't reach the food, they would have all died. The 'Natural Selection' would be more like 'Natural Decomposition'.
HOAX lucy_fake_frame
Now keep in mind THESE ARE ALL - ONLY THEORIES
Even though they try to cover up the word 'Theory' with so many of their 'observations', they still have the problem of two things:
1. Changing their 'theories' every time there is clear evidence against their position
2. Making up things to fit their stories and then covering up when they are found out.
Proof?
Glad you asked. Now take a look at these two very clear examples of lies, fabrications and coverups for the so-called 'numerous observations' of things in nature.
First - The 'Piltdown Man' Theory in England
"Discovered" in 1912 in a gravel pit in Piltdown, England - Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax in 1953.
The whole 'evolution theory' seemed to be proven by bone fragments presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. These fragments consisted of parts of a skull and jawbone, said to have been collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, East Sussex, England. The Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man", after the collector Charles Dawson) was given to the specimen. The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan deliberately combined with the skull of a fully developed modern human. The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleoanthropological hoax ever to have been perpetrated. It is prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.
Note: many more theories were based on these "findings" including papers, thesis for Ph.Ds and very provocative headlines with profound affect on folks in those days.
Politicians and pastors alike, used all to this attention to further their individual causes. Take for instance, the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial".
On Our Website at: http://scienceislam.comhoax monkey_trail_newspaper
hoax monkey_trial
Evolution or Creation
(Islam Proves Both Exist)
Allah is Both: The Creator & The Evolver
Scopes Monkey Trial, was a famous American legal case in 1925 in which a high school teacher, John Scopes, was accused of violating Tennessee's Butler Act, which made it unlawful to teach human evolution in any state-funded school.[1] The trial was deliberately staged in order to attract publicity to the small town of Dayton, Tennessee, where it was held. Scopes was unsure whether he had ever actually taught evolution, but he purposefully incriminated himself so that the case could have a defendant.
Second - The 'Nebraska Man' Theory in (of all places) Nebraska:

Third - "LUCY" The forensically Fraudulent Pseudo-Scientific Reconstructions of Mankind…
Check out the 'Walking Evolution of WOman-kind':
HOAX lucy_fake_images_cvrdInsult to Women & Insult to Our Intelegence Too!
From very few pieces of skeletal remains, "scientists" were able to reconstruct the exact image of what they wanted to believe the early "humans" were like.
Of course, when discovered to be fraud, they were quick to note these were actually a type of 'hominid" and not actually "homosapien" as some had believed.
Evolution - Creation (Or Both?)
[click here to EVOLVE]
link:http://islamnewsroom.com/news-we-need/2099-darwins-real-theory

Richard Dawkins "There MIGHT be a God?"


Atheist Richard Dawkins Says
richard dawkins 00
There Might Be A God!
NOTICE: the following article is NOT from our regular Islam Newsroom reporters
However, chances are it could be at least 6.9% out of 7 - true.

None of us could believe it - Richard Dawkins, well known for his lack of belief and open critizism of religion in general and Christianity in particular, has now declared HE DOES BELIEVE - In "Something" - A God or Higher Power.
Read . .
'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic . . .
richard dawkins
Scholar Richard Dawkins, looks almost puzzeled as he contemplates the existance of a "Higher Power" (A.K.A. God or Allah) Now says He is Agnostic - not atheist. Also, Darwin Theory
But when Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams suggested that Professor Dawkins is often described as the world's most famous atheist, the geneticist responded: 'Not by me'.
He said: 'On a scale of seven, where one means I know he exists, and seven I know he doesn't, I call myself a six.'
Professor Dawkins also referred to his level of "belief" in a God to be only "6.9 out of 7". He also stated: 'That doesn't mean I'm absolutely confident, that I absolutely know, because I don't.'
Dawkins agnostic1
They were discussing 'The Nature of Human Beings and the Question of their Ultimate Origin' when Professor Dawkins admitted he was agnostic rather than an atheist
The two high-profile figures - debating whether Biblical writers 'got it wrong' by not saying that the universe is billions of years old.
The Archbishop said: 'The writers of the Bible, inspired as I believe they were, were not inspired to do 21st century physics, they were inspired to pass on to their readers what God wanted them to know."
'In the first book of the Bible is the basic information - the universe depends on God, humanity has a very distinctive role in that universe , and humanity has made rather a mess of it.'

But Professor Dawkins said he was 'baffled' by 'the way sophisticated theologians who know Adam and Eve never existed still keep talking about it'.

This latest admission by Professor Dawkins comes after he was left lost for words name the full title of his scientific hero’s most famous work during a radio discussion last week in which he accused Christians of being ignorant of the Bible.

In his frustration, he resorted to a helpless: ‘Oh God’
Even Atheists Are Admiting "There MIGHT be something out there"
But they are just "Not positive" (yet)
Now it is our turn to clear up misconceptions
Leave him a message here - inshallah - Allah Guide him...
-------
link:http://islamnewsroom.com/news-we-need/1802-richard-dawkins-qthere-might-be-a-godq

Video Went VIRAL after Stephen Hawking says 'Universe Created Itself' 28,000+ HITS IN 24 HOURS

Scientist Stephen Hawking
science Stephen_Hawking_01
 8 minute video - GOING VIRAL RIGHT NOW - OVER 40,000+ now .
THIS IS CRAZY! We never thought something about Islam & science would take off all around the world, SO FAST...
Right now in USA, UK, Malaysia, Qatar, KSA, UAE, Japan, Canada, France, Germany and just now Egypt.
Stephen Hawking, famous scientist gives lectures on universe and creation,while looking for answers to his questions.But we already know the answers Quran.
Allah created a single thing and then "expanded it" and it is still "expanding" today. Allah brought EVERYTHING OUT OF NOTHING.
YES! Hawking said, "Universe created itself out of NOTHING"
WHAT? HOW?
His understanding (or lack of it) makes anyone wonder why these genius intellectuals still refuse to accept the truth of Islam that came 1,400 years ago in Quran?
Amazing video proves scientists are forced to admit facts we know in Quran today. 
Stephen Hawking - Questions the Universe
— Transcribed video of TED Talk on TubeIslam.com/video/12252/:

“There is nothing bigger or older than the universe. The questions I would like to talk about are, one:
“Where did we come from? How did the universe come into being?
“Are we alone in the universe? Is there alien life out there? What is the future of the human race?”
Where did we come from? How did the universe come into being?
Until the 1920s, everyone thought the universe was essentially unchanging in time. Then it was discovered that the universe was expanding.
It was recently discovered the universe is expanding.
“And it is Allah Who has constructed the heaven with power and certainly,
it is Allah Who is steadily expanding it.”
- Quran, chapter 51, verse 47

 Distant galaxies were moving away from us. This meant they must have been closer together in the past. If we extrapolate back, we find we must have all been on top of each other about 15 billion years ago. This was the Big Bang, the beginning of the universe.

This the ‘Big Bang’ - the beginning of the universe.
“Don’t the unbelievers see the heavens and earth were all joined together (as one creation) BEFORE we split them apart?
Allah made every living thing from water. Won’t they ever believe?”
- Quran, chapter 21, verse 30 

But was there anything before the Big Bang? If not, what created the universe? Why did the universe emerge from the Big Bang the way it did? We used to think that the theory of the universe could be divided into two parts.
First, there were the laws like Maxwell's equations and general relativity that determined the evolution of the universe, given its state over all of space at one time.
And second, there was no question of the initial state of the universe.
We had made good progress on the first part and now have the knowledge of the laws of evolution under the most extreme conditions.
But until recently, we have had little idea about the initial conditions for the universe. However, this division into laws of evolution and initial conditions depends on time and space being separate and distinct. Under extreme conditions, general relativity and quantum theory allow time to behave like another dimension of space. This removes the distinction between time and space, and means the laws of evolution can also determine the initial state. The universe can spontaneously create itself out of nothing.
Stephen Hawking is referring to the “No Boundary Proposal” for early-universe cosmology.But it DOES NOT SAY “something comes from nothing”.His statement is greatly spun out of context and offered only as a “crowd pleaser”.His question of “Existence of the Universe” is left UNSOLVED!

Moreover, we can calculate the probability that the universe is created in different states. These predictions are in excellent agreement with observations like W-Mat (?) satellite of the cosmic microwave background. Which is an imprint of the very early universe. We think we have solved the mystery of creation.
“We think we have solved the mystery of creation”WHAT? REALLY?”Spontaneous Creation Out of NOTHING?”
“The Day that Allah roll’s up the heavens, like a scroll rolled up for books (completed),
- even as Allah produced the first creation, so shall He produce a new one:
A promise He has undertaken! Truly, He shall fulfill it”
- Quran, chapter 21, verse 104

Are we alone in the universe?
Is there alien life out there?
I now turn to the second big question:
“Are we alone? Or is there other life in the universe?”
We believe that life arose spontaneously on the Earth. So it must be possible for life to appear on other suitable planets, of which there seem to be a large number in the galaxy. But we don’t know how life first appeared.
But we don't know how life first appeared.
We have two pieces of observational evidence on the probability of life appearing.
The first is that we have fossils of algae from 3.5 billion years ago. The Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago and was probably too hot for about the first half billion years.
So life appeared on Earth within half a billion years of it being possible, which is short compared to the 10-billion-year lifetime of a planet of Earth type.
This suggests that a probability of life appearing is reasonably high. If it was very low, one would have expected it to take most of the ten billion years available. One would expect it to take most of the 10 billion years available.
One would expect (creation of life) to take most of 10 billion years available.
“Were they created out of nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth?
Nay, but they are sure of NOTHING.”
On the other hand, we don't seem to have been visited by aliens.
I am discounting the reports of UFOs. Why would they only appear to “cranks” and “weirdos”?
If there is a government conspiracy to suppress the reports and keep for itself the scientific knowledge the aliens bring, it seems to have been a singularly ineffective policy so far.
This probably indicates that there are no alien civilizations at our stage of development within a radius of a few hundred light years.
“And of His Signs is the creation of the heavens and earth and what He has spread forth in both of them of living beings; and when He pleases, He is All-Powerful, to gather them together”
- Quran, chapter 42, verse 29
-What is the future of the human race?-
This brings me to the last of the big questions:
“What is the future of the human race?”
If we are the only intelligent beings in the galaxy, we should make sure we survive and continue.
But we are entering an increasingly dangerous period of our history. Our population and our use of the finite resources of planet Earth are growing exponentially, along with our technical ability to change the environment for good or ill.
But our genetic code still carries the selfish and aggressive instincts that were of survival advantage in the past. It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million.
Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain on planet Earth, but to spread out into space.
“These are the verse of the Book, and a Recitation (Quran)
that makes things clear.
Often will those who disbelieve wish they had been
 (people who submit to God's Will in Peace) Muslims.
Let them eat and enjoy life, and let (their false) hope beguile them.
They will come to know!”
Quran, chapter 15, verses 1-3.
The answers to these big questions show that we have made remarkable progress in the last hundred years. But if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space.
— Transcribed & summarized by Robyn Darbyshire
You have to see this video 'Scientists Map Universe' complete with patterns of expanding - AS IN QURAN 1,400 years ago:
MORE Scientists Confirm Quran & Islam (videos)
http://ScienceISLAM.com/scientists_quran.php
scientist1
Want to add something? Comment below. We need more comments. Just say "salams" - take it viral!

link:http://islamnewsroom.com/news-we-need/2247-video-goes-viral-stephen-hawking-says-universe-created-itself-11000-hits-12-hrs

Thursday, 9 July 2015

Six Imam Of Collecting The Hadith Book were in Persian Region

It is a little known fact that all six of the authors/compilers of the major books of Sunni ḥadīth—works that are together known as the Si ḥāḥ al-Sitta—were of Persian/Iranian origin. Interestingly, these eminent figures are only six of hundreds of other Iranian scholars who were central to the shaping of the Sunni religious and intellectual tradition. In a scheme of early medieval Islamic history which is dominated by Arabo-centrism and in a contemporary world in which the association between Iran and Shi’ism is so central that one cannot think of one without the other, this fact of the Persian or Iranian origin of some of the most important figures of authority in Sunni Islam becomes increasinglyrelevant in challenging the dominant narratives and assumptions which continue to pervade the historical understanding (and contemporary vision) of Islam and Iran. It also emphasizes that some of the most important developments in traditionist Sunni scholarship in the medieval period occurred on the Iranian plateau.
(In this context, Iranian origin is intended to convey that these individuals were 1) descended from the indigenous inhabitants of the Iranian plateau; and 2) were Persian-speaking)
Image
1)     Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Ismā‘īl ibn Ibrāhīm ibn al-Mughīrah ibn Bardizbah al-Ju‘fī al-Bukhārī (810–870), originally from Bukhara (located in modern-day Uzbekistan)
Image
Image
Image
2)     Abū al-Ḥusayn ‘Asākir ad-Dīn Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj ibn Muslim ibn Ward ibn Kawshādh al-Qushayrī an-Naysābūrī (815–875), originally from Nishapur (located in modern-day Iran)
Image
3)     Aḥmad ibn Shu`ayb ibn Alī ibn Sīnān Abū `Abd ar-Raḥmān al-Nasā’ī (829–915), originally from Nasā (located in modern-day Turkmenistan)
Image
4)     Abū Dawūd Sulaymān ibn al-Ashʿath al-Azdī al-Sijistānī (817–889), originally from Sijistan (located in modern-day Iran). There is a difference of opinion on this scholar with some scholars asserting that he was partially descended from the tribe of Azd while others have claimed that his family were “mawāli” (clients) the Arab tribe of Azd, hence the tribal nisbah.
Image
5)     Abū ‘Īsa Muḥammad ibn ‛Īsa al-Sulamī al-Ḍarīr al-Būghī al-Tirmidhī (824–892), originally from Termez (located in modern-day Uzbekistan)
Image
6)     Abū ʻAbdillāh Muḥammad ibn Yazīd Ibn Mājah al-Rabʻī al-Qazwīnī (824–889, originally from Qazvin (located in modern-day Iran). His family were “mawāli” (clients) the Arab tribe of Rabī’a, hence the tribal nisbah.
Image
Image
Source: Lost Of Islamic History 

Tuesday, 12 May 2015

Why Don't we read anymore? - Cl. By Dr M M Abdul Halim


Or, can books save us from what digital does to our brains?

Last year, I read four books.
The reasons for that low number are, I guess, the same as your reasons for reading fewer books than you think you should have read last year: I’ve been finding it harder and harder to concentrate on words, sentences, paragraphs. Let alone chapters. Chapters often have page after page of paragraphs. It just seems such an awful lot of words to concentrate on, on their own, without something else happening. And once you’ve finished one chapter, you have to get through the another one. And usually a whole bunch more, before you can say finished, and get to the next. The next book. The next thing. The next possibility. Next next next.
I am an optimist

Still, I am an optimist. Most nights last year, I got into bed with a book — paper or e — and started. Reading. Read. Ing. One word after the next. A sentence. Two sentences.
Maybe three.
And then … I needed just a little something else. Something to tide me over. Something to scratch that little itch at the back of my mind— just a quick look at email on my iPhone; to write, and erase, a response to a funny Tweet from William Gibson; to find, and follow, a link to a good, really good, article in the New Yorker, or, better, the New York Review of Books (which I might even read most of, if it is that good). Email again, just to be sure.
I’d read another sentence. That’s four sentences.
Smokers who are the most optimistic about their ability to resist temptation are the most likely to relapse four months later, and overoptimistic dieters are the least likely to lose weight. (Kelly McGonigal: The Willpower Instinct)
It takes a long time to read a book at four sentences per day.
And it’s exhausting. I was usually asleep halfway through sentence number five.
I’ve noticed this pattern of behaviour for a while now, but I think last year’s completed book tally was as low as it has ever been. It was dispiriting, most deeply so because my professional life revolves around books: I startedLibriVox (free public domain audiobooks), and Pressbooks (an online platform for making print and ebooks), and I co-edited a book about the future of books.
I’ve dedicated my life one way or another to books, I believe in them, yet, I wasn’t able to read them.
I’m not alone.
When the people at the New Yorker can’t concentrate long enough to listen to a song all the way through, how are books to survive?

I heard an interview on the New Yorker podcast recently, the host was interviewing writer and photographer, Teju Cole.
Host:
One of the challenges in culture now is to, say, listen to a song all the way through, we’re all so distracted, are you still able to kind of give deep attention to things, are you able to sort of engage in culture that way?”
Teju Cole:
“Yes, very much so.”
When I heard this, I felt like hugging the host. He couldn’t even listen to a song all the way through, before getting distracted. Imagine what his bedside pile of books does to him.
I also felt like hugging Teju Cole. It’s people like Mr. Cole who give us hope that someone will be left to teach our children how to read books.
Dancing to distraction

What was true of my problems reading books — the unavoidable siren call of the digital hit of new information — was true in the rest of my life as well.
My two-year old daughter, dance recital. Pink tutu. Cat ears on her head. Along with five other two-year-olds, in front of a crowd of 75 parents and grandparents, these little toddlers put on a show. You can imagine the rest. You’ve seen these videos on Youtube, maybe I have shown you my videos. The cuteness level was extreme, a moment that defines a certain kind of parental pride. My daughter didn’t even dance, she just wandered around the stage, looking at the audience with eyes as wide as a two-year old’s eyes starting at a bunch of strangers. It didn’t matter that she didn’t dance, I was so proud. I took photos, and video, with my phone.
And, just in case, I checked my email. Twitter. You never know.
I find myself in these kinds of situations often, checking email or Twitter, or Facebook, with nothing to gain except the stress of a work-related message that I can’t answer right now in any case.
It makes me feel vaguely dirty, reading my phone with my daughter doing something wonderful right next to me, like I’m sneaking a cigarette.
Or a crack pipe.
One time I was reading on my phone while my older daughter, the four-year-old, was trying to talk to me. I didn’t quite hear what she had said, and in any case, I was reading an article about North Korea. She grabbed my face in her two hands, pulled me towards her. “Look at me,” she said, “when I’m talking to you.”
She is right. I should.


Spending time with friends, or family, I often feel a soul-deep throb coming from that perfectly engineered wafer of stainless steel and glass and rare earth metals in my pocket. Touch me. Look at me. You might find something marvellous.
This sickness is not limited to when I am trying to read, or once-in-a-lifetime events with my daughter.
At work, my concentration is constantly broken: finishing writing an article (this one, actually), answering that client’s request, reviewing and commenting on the new designs, cleaning up the copy on the About page. Contacting so and so. Taxes.
All these tasks critical to my livelihood, get bumped more often than I should admit by a quick look at Twitter (for work), or Facebook (also for work), or an article about Mandelbrot sets (which, just this minute, I read).
Email, of course, is the worst, because email is where work happens, and even if it’s not the work you should be doing right now it may well be work that’s easier to do than what you are doing now, and that means somehow you end up doing that work instead of whatever you are supposed to be working on now. And only then do you get back to what you should have been focusing on all along.
Dopamine and digital

It turns out that digital devices and software are finely tuned to train us to pay attention to them, no matter what else we should be doing. The mechanism, borne out by recent neuroscience studies, is something like this:
·         New information creates a rush of dopamine to the brain, a neurotransmitter that makes you feel good.
·         The promise of new information compels your brain to seek out that dopamine rush.
With fMRIs, you can see the brain’s pleasure centres light up with activity when new emails arrive.
So, every new email you get gives you a little flood of dopamine. Every little flood of dopamine reinforces your brain’s memory that checking email gives a flood of dopamine. And our brains are programmed to seek out things that will give us little floods of dopamine. Further, these patterns of behaviour start creating neural pathways, so that they become unconscious habits: Work on something important, brain itch, check email, dopamine, refresh,dopamine, check Twitter, dopamine, back to work. Over and over, and each time the habit becomes more ingrained in the actual structures of our brains.
How can books compete?
Pleasing ourselves to death

There is a famous study of rats, wired up with electrodes on their brains. When the rats press a lever, a little charge gets released in part of their brain that stimulates dopamine release. A pleasure lever.
Given a choice between food and dopamine, they’ll take the dopamine, often up to the point of exhaustion and starvation. They’ll take the dopamine over sex. Some studies see the rats pressing the dopamine lever 700 times in an hour.
We do the same things with our email. Refresh. Refresh.



There is no beautiful universe on the other side of the email refresh button, and yet it’s the call of that button that keeps pulling me out of the work I am doing, out of reading books I want to read.
Why are books important?

When I think back on my life, I can define a set of books that shaped me — intellectually, emotionally, spiritually. Books have always been an escape, a learning experience, a saviour, but beyond this, greater than this, certain books became, over time, a kind of glue that holds together my understanding of the world. I think of them as nodes of knowledge and emotion, nodes that knot together the fabric my self. Books, for me anyway, hold together who I am.
Books, in ways that are different to visual art, to music, to radio, to love even, force us to walk through another’s thoughts, one word at a time, over hours and days. We share our minds for that time with the writer’s. There is a slowness, a forced reflection required by the medium that is unique. Books recreate someone else’s thoughts inside our own minds, and maybe it is this one-to-one mapping of someone else’s words, on their own, without external stimuli, that give books their power. Books force us to let someone else’s thoughts inhabit our minds completely.
Books are not just transferrers of knowledge and emotion, but a special kind of tool that flattens one self into another, that enable the trying-on of foreign ideas and emotions.
This suppressing of the self is a kind of meditation too — and while books have always been important to me on their own (pre-digital) merits, it started to occur to me that “learning how to read books again,” might also be a way to start weaning my mind away from this dopamine-soaked digital detritus, this meaningless wash of digital information, which would have a double benefit: I would be reading books again, and I would get my mind back.
And, there are, often, beautiful universes to be found on the other side of the cover of a book.
The problems with digital stuff

Recent neuroscience confirms many of the things we sufferers of digital overload know innately. That successful multi-tasking is a myth. Multi-tasking makes us stupider. According to psychologist Glenn Wilson, the cognitive losses from multitasking are equivalent to smoking pot. (UPDATE: thanks to Liza Daly for pointing out that Glenn Wilson has publicly stated that this study was part of a paid PR gig, and misrepresented in the media. See:http://www.drglennwilson.com/Infomania_experiment_for_HP.doc)
This is bad for so many reasons: it makes us less effective at work, which means either we get less done, or have less time to spend doing other things, or both.
Being in a situation where you are trying to concentrate on a task, and an e-mail is sitting unread in your inbox, can reduce your effective IQ by 10 points. (The Organized Mind, by Daniel J Levitin)
It’s worse than that though, because this constant hopping from one thing to another is also exhausting.
My least productive days, the days when I have spent the most time jumping between projects and emails and Twitter and whatever else, are also my most exhausting days. I used to think that my exhaustion was the cause of this lack of focus, but it turns out the opposite might be true.
It takes more energy to shift your attention from task to task. It takes less energy to focus. That means that people who organize their time in a way that allows them to focus are not only going to get more done, but they’ll be less tired and less neurochemically depleted after doing it. (The Organized Mind, by Daniel J Levitin)
The problem defined

And so, the problem, more or less, is identified:
1.      I cannot read books because my brain has been trained to want a constant hit of dopamine, which a digital interruption will provide
2.      This digital dopamine addiction means I have trouble focusing: on books, work, family and friends
Problem identified, or most of it. There is more.
Oh, and don’t forget about television
We live in a golden age of television, there is no doubt. The stuff being produced these days is very good. And there is a lot of it.
For the past couple of years, my evening routine has been a variation on: get home from work, exhausted. Make sure the girls have eaten. Make sure I eat. Get the girls to bed. Feel exhausted. Turn on the computer to watch some (neo-golden-age-era) television. Fiddle with work emails, and generally piddle around while that golden-age-era TV consumes 57% of my attention. Be bad at watching TV and bad at getting emails done. Go to bed. Try to read. Check email. Try to read again. Fall asleep.
Those who read own the world, and those who watch television lose it. (Werner Herzog)
I don’t know if Werner Herzog is right, but I do know that I would never say about television — even the great stuff, of which there is plenty — what I say about books. There are no television shows that exist as nodes holding together my understanding of the world. My relationship to television is just not the same as it is to books.
And, so, a change

And so, starting in January, I started making some changes. The key ones are:
1.      No more Twitter, Facebook, or article reading during the work day (hard)
2.      No reading of random news articles (hard)
3.      No smartphones or computers in the bedroom (easy)
4.      No TV after dinner (it turns out, easy)
5.      Instead, go straight to bed and start reading a book — usually on an eink ereader (it turns out, easy)
The shocking thing was how quickly my mind adapted to accommodate reading books again. I had expected to fight for that concentration — but I didn’t have to fight. With less digital input (no pre-bed TV, especially), extra time (no TV, again), and without a tempting digital device near at hand … there was time and space for my mind to settle into a book.
What a wonderful feeling it was.
I am reading books now more than I have in years. I have more energy, and more focus than I’ve had for ages. I have not fully conquered my digital dopamine addiction, though, but it’s getting there. I think reading books is helping me retrain my mind for focus.
And books, it turns out, are still the same wonderful things they used to be. I can read them again.
Workday email, however, remains a problem. If you have suggestions for that, please let me know.