In no particular order...

  Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick 

    This is a rather famous sci fi book. While I didn't hate it, it was't as profound as I had hoped given all the good things I had heard about it. Maybe it would have been better if I read it 20 years ago. On second thought, it does get better the more I think about it.

Foundation by Isaac Asimov

    Pretty darn good book. Many interesting ideas. One that seems to stand out is the idea of a science called "Psychohistory." This science is basically a compelete understanding of psychology and its application to sociology and social dynamics. The authoer, in order to make the book interesting, limits the power of psychohistory so that it can only predict how political and social trends will go, but it cannot predict how a specific individual will act. This seems like an ad-hoc constraint the author had to put in in order to make the book interesting. I hate it when I notice things like that, it ruins stories for me. But, in his sheer brilliance, the author says that psychohistory is like thermodynamics: it is incredibly usefull and accurate for predicting how large numbers of things interact, but one cannot use psychohistory to predict a persons's action just as one cannot use thermodynamics ot predict and individual atoms movement. Man...what a awesome analogy. For me, that just makes the book.
 

Dune by Frank Herbert
    I have wanted to read this book ever since I played the real-time strategy game based on it, back in the early 1990s. I finally read it in 2005. It took me until about page 100 to enjoy reading it. While it's catagorized under sci-fi, and it's definitly a sci fi setting, the story and themes are really better catagorized as politics and adventure. The setting of the book is on a desert planet. Water is an extremely precious commodity. The author does a wonderful job building up an entire culture and religion based on a shortage of water. For example, a person's body and mind belong to that person, but that persons water belongs to the tribe which he is part of. So when the person dies, thier body is drained of its fliuds before being buried. The fluids are then purified back into water. And when a person who is mourning over a dead friend, and cries, that person is considered to be "giving to the dead." Also, spitting on someone is a huge compliment, as it means you are giving up water in order to honor them.
 


Walden by Henry David Thoreau
I have given up reading the entire thing...I'm terrible at reading things like this. But I like what I have managed to read. "The things you own will begin to own you", or something along those lines.
 

 

1984 by George Orwell

    One of the first books I really enjoyed. Made me realize I usually don't like reading for plots. To me, plots are merely a medium upon which messages that are applicable to the real world be can be transmitted to the reader. I like reading for ideas.


Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Pretty much the same commentary as 1984. But in my personal opinion, it wasn't quit as good.

 

Da Vinci Code
    With all the rave, I thought this book was going to be like eating a filet mignog with a glass of fine red wine: Savory and rich. Something you need digest for a while because of its depth and complexity. Instead, reading this book was like eating one of those candies that consists of a tube filled with flavoured sugar. You open it, its good, you can't put it down. But when your done, you have nothing. Nothing to chew on, nothing in your stomach, no nutrients to extract. A hollow, empty feeling inside. The plot was gripping but I'd watch FearFactor if all I wanted was to be cheaply entertained. I guess I am presumptuous in assuming that the author want to do more than entertain. Perhaps thats why I was so dissapointed with this. Its all a matter of personal preference. I just prefer things that I can relate to personal or societal issues, like Catcher in the Rye or 1984.
 

 

Ender Game by Orson Scott Card
    Decent book. It grew on me after I finished the book and thought about it. One thing that struck my fancy was this: Humans are fighting an alien race of ant-like creatures who are intelligent, but controlled by a queen ant. Humans think these creatures are terrible (morally) because they killed many humans with no remorse. But the humans eventually figure out that it was really just a cultural misunderstanding. The ant-like aliens didn't realize that individual humans had an autonomy and thus were valued by thier human societies as individuals. The ants didn't care if individual ants died, they only cared if the queen ant dies. Individual ants are not autonomous, they are part of a cumulitive conciousness of the entire colony. So the ants didn't think it mattered if they killed individual humans, just as humans don't think it matters very much to kill a few cells of another human, as long as the human is alive afterwards. One part of the book I hated was the stupid computer game. I think it was supposed to be symbolic of something, but I just didn't get it. 
 

 

I, Robot by Isaac Asimov
    The only mystery book I've ever liked. Every other mystery book just makes me think the author is holding back information. I feel like if the author just spilled the beans, I'd know everything and the mystery would be over. This prevents me from enjoying fictional mysteries. But in this book, once the answer was finally revealed, I felt like it was all right there in front of me. Like a seeing a math proof. 
 

 

Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate George Lakoff
    This is a rather short read, and while I don't know if I totally agree with it, there are some interesting points. Written by a proffesor of cognitive science at UC Berkeley, the book discusses how facts just bounce off of people unless it fits thier "frame of mind". The author (who is clearly democratic) explains that democrats keep thinking "if only the facts were known, people would change thier stance on certain issues." But in reality, a framework must be established inside which the facts can reside. Otherwise, facts do little to change people's perspective. It also discusses how words trigger thoughts and concepts that may or not fit within the context of how the word was used. For example, when you read the title, you probably thought of an elephant despite the fact that you were told not to. In practice, when president Bush speaks of tax relief, it makes you think of tax as being a burden. It brings up the concepts already in your head about having to give up chunks of money each April. Democrats don't have a simple two word phrase to talk about the econimic benefits of an interstate highway system, the internet. Or the benefits of medical and scientifc research, all of which are built from taxes. A liberal must spend a paragraph or two explaining these concepts to get his point across. News anchors don't like it when people talk for more than a few sentances, so liberals have trouble communicating thier ideas with the public. The author says if liberals want to get anybody in office, they must first focus on getting thier ideas out there in a more concise form, then worry about spreading facts. Other examples of the Bush administration abusing words include the "Clear Skies Initiative" and "Healthy Forests Act." They evoke images but the actual bill doesn't do it you'd expect given its name. 
 

 

    Evolution, Monism, Atheism and the Naturalist World-View
    Interesting book, but I think it could have been better. This was the Ph.D. thesis for Greg Graffin, the lead singer of Bad Religion. To quote him: "The purpose of this study is to determine the degree to which the world's leading evolutionary biologists believe in traditional religion, naturalism, and the philosophical implications of their science. A further goal will be to understand how they reconcile these disparate and often conflicting beliefs with their teaching and practice of evolutionary biology." Reguardless of your religious beleifs, it is interesting to see how many leading scienists answer when asked outright about thier religious beliefs. Its also interesting to see how scientists think they need to talk to the public about the implications of thier science.
 

 

   Why People Believe Wierd Things by Michael Shermer
    Decent, but not spectacular book. It's not exactly about why people believe wierd things. It's more like the ramblings of a rationalist in a irrational world. I skipped the rather lengthy section on "Holocause Denial." The book does a good job explaining how "psychic readers" do thier reading by carefully, yet casually, observing people's responses to generic statements. The psychic can then slowly hone in on something that sounds specific enough to make people think something mysterious is at work. Once the psychic has said something that only "psychic powers" could allow him to know ("Your son, John, died a few years ago) People watching the psychic readily forget all of the vague or incorrect statements, and remember only the "hits". The skeptic (and non-psychic) of the book author learns this technique and uses it on people to show that psychic powers are not required to amaze people. 
   Good quote from the book: ""Science is not the affirmation of a set of beliefs but a process of inquiry aimed at building a testable body of knowledge constantly open to rejection of confirmation. In science, knowledge is fluid and certainty is fleeting." 
    But perhaps the aboslute best part of this book comes in the preface. Many people are quick to say "who cares if people believe in UFO's and psychics. It never hurt anyone. Why be so grouchy and skeptical and ruin all the fun." Well, here is an example of why its irresponsable to not be skeptical of amazing claims. In the 1980's there were several people called "facilitators" that claimed to help parents communicate with thier autistic children by "guiding" the hands of the children as they typed on keyboards. (Like Ouija boards). Of course eager parents were overly hopefull, threw rational thought out the window, and were happy to see thier child type "I love you dad". (The facilitators make sure the children type such wonderful things, otherwise they wouldn't get any repeat business). Then some facilitators decided that autism must have a cause...childhood sexual abuse (appearantly there was a "trend" is psychology to start blaming autism on such things). Suddenly these "facilitators" were subpeonad by courts, and testified that autistic children were typing out messages of accusation. Many parents were falsey and judicially charged. Thankfully, the issues was resolved with a double-blind experiment showing the "facilitators" were totally bunk. This, and many other examples show why rational thought is more than just killing people's harmless fun.
 

 

Other books I've read. One day I'll type up something about them:

        - These books ROCK!!! 

- First story I ever enjoyed in an English class. The rest of the class hated it, but I hated everything else.