It depends on the criteria for ‘best’. In a philosophical context I’m not sure what ‘best’ means. Superlatives are great for empirical contexts but philosophy, by its nature, falls outside of that line. Do they mean best written, best content, best accessibility for the layman? A lot of the time I have noticed that obscure, academic works are cited. Is this an exercise in pretentiousness? I would suggest that the ‘best’ philosophical works open up new questions in a simple and coherent manner for all to understand. To simplify the complex is the real gift of any author.

In this link D.M. Armstrong's "A Materialist Theory of Mind" is listed as the number one book in Philosophy of Mind. For what it's worth, the title of my Ph.D. dissertation was "The Status of the Mental: A Whiteheadian Response to Armstong's Materialism." I chose the topic shortly after Armstrong's book came out in the late '60s, and it was accepted (Vanderbilt) in 1972. As I said: "For what it's worth...."

May as well examine your navel & pick some lint out of it as read that recycled shit.

some of those recommendations are indeed philosophical, but many seem to be more concerned with physics -- which is fine by me, since without an understanding of SOME sort of the latter, the former isn't going to mean a whole lot. "the moon's a balloon" may be a grand autobiography title (david niven, as it happens) but it would make a really stupid philosophy book title, right? so i am glad to see so much stuff about the brain and consciousness, even though i can't guarantee they're not flights of fancy (they look as if they might not be) even though i don't know that philosophy is the right category for them.

g