With regards to the chapter, I do NOT agree that humans are like machines. During the course of the experiment there was a marked improvement in the reaction times (especially for my right hand). This, however, would not have been the case for a machine, which would have given a consistent performance without improvements in reaction times, unless better technology is used for the machine.
A machine would not be able to learn to anticipate the ruler falling, like what had happened in my case during the ruler lab. machines are only able to enact a function they were programmed to. If the ruler lab was completed again with robots, all the robots, I agree, would have consistent results and would not vary at all in their performance. Humans are more prone to committing errors and be tricked. As evident in the ruler lab, my results did not consistently improve, but were a bit all over the place. The purpose of machines in today's world are to be precise and more accurate than a human can ever be. Therefore, humans are not nearly like machines.
I agree with atoj and the original poster, ajanakir. Machines would give predictable, precise results. Their results would not differ. Humans are very much unlike machines in this respect because (as atoj said) they are more prone to committing errors. Humans are also prone to distractions and impulses that are natural and not mechanical. The machines would also not learn from their past experiences the way humans do. Humans get better at certain activities through practice and repetition whereas machines will always yield similar results to their past results; they will not be effected by how many times they do a certain activity.
