Question 4: How do the results of this lab support (or not support) the view of humans as machines as discussed in Chapter two of Gleitman?
There are two views associated with "humans as machines." The first is that of Descartes. It is predicated around the fact that the body is made up of "gears and mechanical parts" and is controlled by the soul. The second view is the more modern approach, stating that humans are computers.
I would have to say that the lab does not support either of these ideas. Computers/machines are incapable of learning - they do as they are programmed to do. Judging by the fact that our response times were varied, one can see that we are not "programmed" to catch a ruler. In addition, humans are typically able to make the conscious decision of whether or not to catch the ruler, and to some effect when to catch the ruler - two decisions computers/machines typically cannot make.
I agree. A machine would be made to catch the ruler at a certain time every time. Humans are set apart because we have the choice and can make the decision to catch the ruler, miss the ruler, or not do the lab at all and go on Facebook. A machine would not make the choice to not do something, it isn't a conscious being and therefore cannot think or decide.
I will give it to Decartes that we are machines in the physical mechanical sense, considering we have pivoting bones and contraction of muscles ect, but we are not machines emotionally or spiritually or psychologically because by principle, a machine does not have emotions, or thoughts at all. -cmusich
