** STICKY ** Suggested Reading

[nasher168]

Nineteen Eighty-Four

Animal Farm

Brave New World

Contact

The Foundation Series

The Foundation Prelude Series

The Robots Series (Read this series between books 3 and 4 of the Foundation series for the best experience. They're set in the same universe, but Robots books are set 17000 years earlier. Books 4 and 5 of Foundation series make references to this connection.)

The End of Eternity (Read between books 3 and 4 of Foundation)

The Hobbit

The Lord of the Rings (read The Hobbit first)

The Road

The Time Machine

The War of the Worlds

The Space Odyssey Series

 

[gimmypig]

No doubt I'll have to edit this, and put in the many that I've forgotten about, but here goes...

non-fiction
Steven Pinker - How the Mind Works - Currently reading this and enjoying it
Ben Goldacre - Bad Science
Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion
Richard Dawkins - The Greatest Show on Earth
Stephen Hawking - A Brief History of Time
Brian Cox & Jeff Foreshaw - Why does E=mc,² - OK, I'll admit that my brain did gloss over on a few occasions due to equasions, but I got through it still!
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything - I'll also reccomend the Kids version for those of you who have spawned!
Jon Ronson - The Men who Stare at Goats
Jon Ronson - Them
Derren Brown - Tricks of the Mind
Steven D. Levvit & Stephen J. Dubner - Freakonomics
Dave Gorman & Danny Wallace- Are You Dave Gorman?
Danny Wallace - Yes Man atleast 7 times better than the film of the same name

Fiction
Terry Pratchett So far I've not read a book of his that I've not enjoyed. I've been quite a late started in regards to Discworld, but I'm slowly making my way through the series
Stephen King - Hearts in Atlantis
Douglass Adams - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Yann Martell - Life of Pi

 

[Laurens]

The Tell Tale Brain - V.S Ramachandran
Lost Christianities - Bart D Ehrman
Life - Richard Fortey

 

[australopithecus]

Why E=MC2: (and why should we care?) - Brian Cox & Jeff Forshaw.
Bad Science - Ben Goldacre.

 

[havanacat]

Ayn Rand, Ann Coulter, Anna of Green Gables

 

[kenandkids]

Ayn Rand, Ann Coulter, Anna of Green Gables

You have got to be a poe... or woefully undereducated ...

 

[australopithecus]

Schrodinger's Kittens - John Gribbin.

 

[Noth]

I see that Pulsar already mentioned Seven Erikson's series, but I have to echo that statement:
fantasy lovers, read the Malazan book of the Fallen series. It is probably my favourite fantasy ever.

I also recently received as a gift Ernest Cline - Ready Player One
He's a new writer and this is apparently his first book, but my oh my what a gem! Must have for anyone who's ever felt anything like a geek/nerd.

 

[Dean]

A new book by the eminent neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga will be released on the 15th of November
Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain

The father of cognitive neuroscience and author of Human offers a provocative argument against the common belief that our lives are wholly determined by physical processes and we are therefore not responsible for our actions

A powerful orthodoxy in the study of the brain has taken hold in recent years: Since physical laws govern the physical world and our own brains are part of that world, physical laws therefore govern our behavior and even our conscious selves. Free will is meaningless, goes the mantra; we live in a "determined" world.

Not so, argues the renowned neuroscientist Michael S. Gazzaniga in this thoughtful, provocative book based on his Gifford Lectures,,one of the foremost lecture series in the world dealing with religion, science, and philosophy. Who's in Charge? proposes that the mind, which is somehow generated by the physical processes of the brain, "constrains" the brain just as cars are constrained by the traffic they create. Writing with what Steven Pinker has called "his trademark wit and lack of pretension," Gazzaniga shows how determinism immeasurably weakens our views of human responsibility; it allows a murderer to argue, in effect, "It wasn't me who did it,,it was my brain." Gazzaniga convincingly argues that even given the latest insights into the physical mechanisms of the mind, there is an undeniable human reality: We are responsible agents who should be held accountable for our actions, because responsibility is found in how people interact, not in brains.

This feature article about Gazzaniga's legacy appeared in yesterday's New York Times: Decoding the Brain's Cacophony

 

[whatsinitforme]

The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand!
HOLY SHIT, this book is amazing.

 

[Laurens]

I got this for Xmas:

The Encyclopedia of Mammals

It's a really awesome reference book for anyone interested in mammal zoology and evolution etc.

It has some contributions from Richard Dawkins too, which is interesting to see in a more academic book.

I'd highly recommend it!

 

[Dean]

I got this for Xmas:

The Encyclopedia of Mammals

It's a really awesome reference book for anyone interested in mammal zoology and evolution etc.

It has some contributions from Richard Dawkins too, which is interesting to see in a more academic book.

I'd highly recommend it!

It may not be your forté, bur I have recently compiled some cosmological / physical works that you may enjoy. Perhaps you'll want to pick up a copy of this book when it comes out ...

On the 10th January this year, a new book by physicist Lawrence Krauss will be released!

A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing ... Free Press, 224 pages.

The reviews on Amazon -- from Neil deGrasse Tyson, A.C. Grayling, Sam Harris, Ian McEwan, Frank Wilczek, and Martin Rees -- are fairly glowing. Krauss's book is "recommended reading" by Scientific American, as you can see in this excerpt:

• "Theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss skewers the notion that creation requires a creator. Mounting evidence from cosmology, particle theory and gravitation, he asserts, indicates that not only could our universe have arisen from nothing but that nothingness might have been required for its origin. Krauss discusses the possible implications of these findings for predicting what the future holds."
  (bold-emphasis mine)

And an added bonus: The foreword of this book was written by ... Christopher Hitchens, an avid fan of Krauss! Plus, the afterword by Richard Dawkins, I think. If there is but one living scientist who defiantly resists "safe haven" theorizing, my bet is that it's Lawrence Krauss. He's no stranger to audacious thinking.

 

[Frenger]

That Lawrence Krauss book is on my IPAD waiting to be read. I loved his debate with William Lane Craig and his talk for Richard Dawkins.

Have you read it yet? I shall probably read it this weekend although I have just started "the better angels of our nature" and it is MAHOOOOOSIVE!

OH!!! And I forgot to recommend a book.

You should all read David Eagleman "incognito". I'm new to Neuroscience so it was a great and fun introduction. Of course if you know anything about neurology I'm sure you'd be fairly bored, but I don't, and I wasn't, so there

ANNDDDD in terms of fiction, I can't recommend Haruki Murakami enough. I read Norweigen wood, then Kafka on the shore, then the wind-up bird chronicles and now I have read nearly all of his. Dance Dance Dance is amazing.

Everyone read Murakami! You won't regret it. I would start with Kafka on the Shore.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

For all those recommending Nietzsche, and which of his books to read first, I'd recommend that those new to him read A Nietzsche Reader.

It gives as good an overview of Nietzsche's philosophy and works for which one could ask, by someone who's a renowned expert and translator - indeed, Hollingdale uses excerpts from his own translations..

Kindest regards,

James

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Hrmm.

Very interesting indeed. It was believed that Nietzsche was insane upon his death in 1900. If someone doesn't expect different results but merely hopes for better times.......Does that make them insane? Interesting concept, I think. But then I guess it sort of depends on what one person sees as the same or different result, no? And I suppose that it also depends on how other people perceive as 'the same' or different, no?