These results don't support humans as machines because of the improvement factor. Machines don't improve, they do the same process every time; both simple gears and more complicated computers do the same process every time.
I overall agree with your statements. However, can't machines improve in time when technology becomes more sophisticated? The more practice and use a machine gets, the more flaws are picked up, fixed, and improved.
Everyone seems to have experienced some sort of variation when doing the ruler lab. The variation certainly does not support the fact humans are like machines but if we were to practice at catching a ruler with repetition; we may become in essence like a machine and catch the ruler in the same spot with minute variation. For example, a basketball player who is really good at shooting free throws can be compared to a machine. The action of shooting a free throw is ingrained like hardware. The really good free shooter rarely deviates from form and makes the majority of his/her free throws.
-- Edited by ehollins28 on Tuesday 15th of September 2009 11:09:17 PM
I agree with everything written in this thread - that our results do not support the theory that humans are like machines. We made mistakes and our results were rarely the same. And in response to the first reply, a machine that can learn to improve its actions is classified as artificial intelligence, isn't it?
While we made mistakes, there was also improvements. Machines are made to perform a specific task or set of tasks while humans are biological organisms. We do numerous tasks, some not so well. So basically I agree with this statement made considering that our reactions were varied, imperfect, and imprecise.
I agree with Cennis's post as this lab clearly shows the difference between us humans and machines. Whereas machines are precise and can possibly improve overtime due to increasing technology at a specific set task, humans are flawed and can make mistakes and succeed interchangeably, with no one specific task in mind. Most importantly, machines will perform at a consistent level while a person's reactions will be "varied, imperfect, and imprecise". Our variability in the lab despite the amount of experience shows how much different from machines we really are.
Mark Erazo
-- Edited by 102intro on Wednesday 16th of September 2009 03:38:50 AM
I also agree that the results of this lab do not support the view of humans as machines. Like almost everyone else, my results were varied but it is possible to see that there was some improvement with practice. Unlike humans, machines would not have this kind of variability and would be unable to improve with practice because they are set to be consistent in the way that they respond. Humans can think about how and what they need to do to improve while machines cannot.
And I also agree with the person that said machines can improve over time, but the machine cannot do that by itself. Someone must program the machine in order to make it better than it was before.
