Some time ago already the winner of our prize contest at the occasion of
our 111th post, suggested that we should write something a bit
‘introspective’. So after introspecting for way too long by now, I finally came
up with a fun way to grant you a peek into my soul: a little test designed to
estimate how much of a Fred you are.
Of course the test will be followed by the answers (with explanations)
and a way to calculate your degree of Fredness.
So here it goes!
Question 1
You have been cueing for ten
minutes in a supermarket when you notice you are in the ‘Ten items or less’
aisle and you have twelve items in your basket. What do you do?
A: You proceed to the cashier, hoping that she
won’t notice and preparing a witty reply in case she does. Something lame like:
‘Ah, but the more the merrier right?’
B: You throw away the two items you deem least
necessary, but when you come home you write a blog post about how unfair the
system is, because with a low number like 10 or 12 items it’s more how fast the
cashier works that determines how fast the cue goes.
C: You forget all about the two items because
you’re getting worked up about the fact that the sign should actually read ‘Ten
items or fewer’. Items are countable,
so we use fewer, not less!
Question 2
If a tree falls in a forest and
there’s no one or nothing around to hear it fall, does it make a sound?
A: Yes.B: No.C: Well, it depends, doesn’t it?
Question 3
You have decided to be a couch
potato for a night and spend an evening in front of the TV. Which action movie
do you watch?
A: The Last Boyscout with Bruce WillisB: Under Siege with Steven SeagalC: Mad Max with Mel Gibson
Question 4
One day you decide you would like
to write a book. But what would the book be about?
A: About odd facts and strange questions.
B: A fantasy story of dungeons and dragons, and
a hero’s tale from rags to riches.
C: About nothing, really.
Question 5
The famous
stranded-on-a-deserted-island question: what would you take if you had to choose?
A: The Bible
B: A guitar
C: 1 liter of distilled water, 20mg of copper
and 25 grams of sodium bicarbonate
!SPOILER ALERT! !SPOILER ALERT! !SPOILER ALERT!
!SPOILER ALERT!
Question 1
The correct answer is C.
A would imply that Freds are smooth talkers
which ain’t the case. B gets one point but that would lead to a pretty boring
blog post, don’t you agree?
A: 0, B: 1, C: 2
Question 2
The correct answer is A.
Of course the falling tree makes a sound. Sound
is physics and physics don’t need people to apply. In fact physics have been
around quite a bit longer than people have. C gets a point as well, because it
is possible to argue that to make a sound
is usually defined rather anthropocentrically, or that you could interpret this
case as a philosophical question. Unfortunately, this does mean you are a bit
of a twat.
A: 2, B: 0, C: 1.
Question 3
The correct answer is B.
Both A and B are acceptable movies, though. A
because of the very funny jokes in it (and a Fred is a bit of a joker) and B because
it has Erika Eleniak’s boobies in it (and a Fred is a bit of a - never mind).
Because of the boobies, though, B is also the best answer, getting two points
(duh). C is just a bad movie.
A: 1, B: 2, C: 0
Question 4
The correct answer is C.
You could have known that I admire well-written
books that basically do not have a story, as I wrote about it here. Answer B,
another favourite of mine, gets one point. Answer A is basically what we’re
doing right now, so that would be a bit pointless, wouldn’t it?
A: 0, B: 1, C: 2
Question 5
The correct answer is A.
Obviously boredom would be the key problem on a
deserted island. And, however strange it seems, the Bible is the best choice.
It may not be that interesting, but trust me, you’d read it from front to back
if it were the only thing you had. Besides, it’s a big book, full of strange
stuff to think about, and that’s quite Fredian really. The second-best choice
is the guitar. Yes, both Freds play the guitar, but eventualy it would break or
you’d start talking to it and call it Wilson
and stuff. Option C was just meant to confuse you. You probably thought that
mixing those together would give you something super useful, didn’t you? In
fact, I haven’t the slightest idea what you’d get. Maybe something bubbly.
A: 2, B:1, C: 0
NOW CALCULATE YOUR TOTAL SCORE!
7-10 points: Right on! You’re just like us. Congratulations! (not).
3-7 points: Almost
there. You just need to learn to listen to your inner Fred some more.
0-3 points: Paris
Hilton, stop visiting our blog. Honestly.
Question 2 is rather a difficult one. If one argues from the presupposition that sound is a subjective (secundary) quality (made in the head)then indeed a falling tree doesn't make any sound when there' s nothing or no one to hear it falling. In this view sound is in the hearing and not in the production or the transportation. Furthermore this model assigns primary properties (and therefore objective, and not vice versa)to so-called soundwaves: frequency, amplitude... through which they acquire a status of reality. It's a model that works extremely well, but it doesn't prove the existence of these entities with primary gualities(waves in this case or more general: the reality-problem in physics: "Do you believe in atoms Mr.Einstein"),nor is this logically necessary. Indeed, why is it that we attribute certain phenomenal properties as being primary (belonging to the object) like mass, volume... while others merely attain the secundarty status of subjectivity? Do not all phenomena are in fact just that and only that: phenomena, experienced by our senses and processed by the brain and are therefore all in essence and inevitably subjective. Why would the phenomenon of mass not be a construct of our senses and mind, just as sound and color are supposed to be, and why do we tend to attribute color - wrongfully so, according to this presupposition - to an object (a falling tree f. ex.), but not sound? Why not put qualia on the side of the object instead of the subject? The fact that we can all agree on the mass of some phenomenon doesn't make it an object or an entity of reality...it just means that the phenomenon acquires a strong basis of objectivity (consensus) through properties like mass and volume...Out of this consensus an object is constructed: reality is a mere construct. If therefore a correspondence exists between object and phenomenon, this doesn't necessarily mean that the phenomenon is a reflection of reality: the object is merely a construct of shared phenomenonal qualities in the public domain of shared concepts and meanings, also constructs.
ReplyDeleteIn short: it's not because we can attribute a certain mass to an "object" (by a standardized methode... no wonder) that we can attribute ontological status to this mass and hence the object. Bye,bye Mr. Higgs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI
ReplyDeleteNothing is underrated, from a twat:)
Patrick, if I were to live with you in one house, I am pretty sure you would be the real Fred :D
ReplyDelete... the ultimate one:), and if only my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle:)
Delete