Books I've read recently

I've read more books in the last 1.5 months than I have in the last 3 years, so I figured that I would mention them and my opinions of them, since they have been on my mind a lot as I travel.

In order of reading:

"Does Anything Eat Wasps?" Mick O'Hare
This is an interesting book for those who like to say "Did you know that blah blah blah...". I often like to do that, and its alienated me with strangers (especially girls) many many times. Anyway, the book is full of obscure scientific trivia and I enjoyed it.

"A Short History of Nearly Everything", Bill Bryson
This is another good book for trivia, and follows a brief history of scientific development, paying particular attention to the egos who developed the theories. A good book but a bit too biographical for me. I wanted more on the theories, but didn't need quite as much biographical and historical context. Still good book though.

"Permutation City", Greg Egan
A book about "mind downloading" and the nature of consciousness and reality. Very good book, though the last bits were less interesting than the first parts for me and seemed to have a couple of incoherent ideas (I won't include spoilers). It maybe bit off more than it can chew by including too many grand themes. Great writing and contains an almost intimidating amount of hard science and philosophy (typical of Greg Egan's work). In any case, an fascinating book I would recommend to almost all of my friends.

"The End of Faith", Sam Harris
A very well argued book, and I find it hard to disagree with almost all of his points (though there's a few bits in consciousness and his hard consequentialist ethics I find difficult to accept). Also, though he clearly acknowledges that there may be faith based secular societies that can have disastrous effects, he focuses much more narrowly on specific religions. In my mind a few short pages are not enough to describe historical disastors of faith based secular societies such as Pol Pot's, Kim Jung Il's, Hitler's, Stalin's, etc... It would have made him more immune to criticism I think to include more writing on this. However, his points are no less true or resounding, despite his focus on religion.

"1984", George Orwell
I've finally got around to reading it. What hasn't been said about this book already? Great book, and shows a sobering picture of society where big brother has completely overridden civil liberties. Recently reading that Fox News edits their own transcripts to correct mistakes that were actually made sickened me all the more, as it was one of the most horrifying aspects of 1984 (for example, when O'Reilly reverses the account of the Malmandy Massacre on TV twice, but the transcript doesn't reflect this, or their repeated attempts to manipulate Wikipedia on a variety of issues). It takes some serious "doublethink" to support those kinds of things.

"Blood Music", Greg Bear
Amazing book, one of my favorites. I can't believe it was written in 1984. Its one of the first "Grey Goo" sci-fi books that were written regarding nanites. Great writing and a great exploration of biotechnology and physics. I've made a mental note to read more Greg Bear books.

"Fairyland", Paul J. McAuley
This book has some very cool ideas. Its plot centers on the creation of bioengineered humans that end up resembling the mythical fae of European ilk in a variety of ways. Its an idea book, but I found the character's to be lacking depth and for that reason I can't say its an excellent book. Though after reading George R. Martin, most other author's characters seem a little less defined.

"The Electric Church", Jeff Somers
A pretty cool cyberpunk book involving a lot of action and gritty descriptions. A nice change of pace from the "hard sci-fi" I have been reading, but I have to say it was a little pulpy. An enjoyable read, but not one of my favs, and doesn't delve too deep.

"50 Philosophy Ideas you Really Need to Know", Ben Dupre
After not reading any philosophy for a while, I needed a relatively light and comprehensive fix. Its a great run down on many of the major ideas and problems out there in philosophy and a good reference or spring board to look up more specific or in depth books on topics and questions that interest you. Its all available online of course, but having a paper book in your hands is easier. Good stuff.

"Metaphysics: The Big Questions" Van Inwagen & Zimmerman
A metaphysics anthology used in university classes. Its the first time in my life I've been reading a university textbook outside of university. It takes much longer to read this than other books, as it involves a lot of re-reading and underlining, etc... Philosophers love their jargon. Seems like a great anthology and I've finished one section (personal identity/mind-body relationship). Here are the essays Ive read so far:
-"Holes", Lewis
-"On What there is", Quine
-"Beyond Being and Non-Being", Chisholm
-"Universals", Russell
-"Universals as Attributes", Armstrong
-"Which Physical Thing am I?", Chisholm
-"Personal Identity: A Materialist Account", Shoemaker
-"An Argument for Animalism", Olson
-"Divided Minds and the Nature of Persons", Parfit
-"Personal Identity: The Dualist Theory", Swinburne
-"The Causal Theory of Mind", Armstrong
-"The Puzzle of Conscious Experience", Chalmers
-"Neutral Monism", Russell

They were all good reads, and all seemed to make pretty good points, but without going into too much detail, there were always some thought experiment or other that made most of them problematic.

The most entertaining one, "Which Physical Thing am I?" by Chisholm, claims our identity lies in an indivisible subatomic particle. Hehe. And yep, its at least logically possible, and escapes some of the problems other accounts for identity have. I think its partially tongue in cheek.

To me, the exception is Parfit's account, which seems unassailable, but has a much weaker account of personal identity by espousing the materialist "bundles of thought" account, similar to Hume, and near identical to a central idea in Buddhism, the "empty self". However, this is not a desireable account of personal identity for many, as it tries to eliminate ego from the picture.

Swinburne's argument for dualism almost left me angry, for it seems to leave out some very important justifications that I think he needs to make in order for his premises to be true. In the end, unless I'm missing something, he seems to say that the logical possibility of dualism entails the reality of dualism, which seems pretty fucking dumbass to me for a variety of reasons (the most obvious of which are that the logical possibility for materialism or idealism are also true). Also, he completely misunderstands Parfit's account of personal identity as far as I understand Parfit. He makes good points along the way, but his conclusion seems to come out of no where. I'll have to read it again, I must have missed something (or he is a christian and NEEDS dualism to be true, so he argues from his conclusion backwards....).


"Axiomatic", Greg Egan
An amazing collection of his short stories, each exploring on perplexing problem or implication in science or philosophy. One of the best short stories I have ever read is contained within, called "Learning to be Me". Truly inspirational and I highly recommend anyone to read it.

"Good Omens", Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman
Very funny and entertaining book that takes the piss out of the revelations section of the bible. Its about the apocalypse, angels, demons, and humans. Good book.