I do not agree with Gleitman that humans are similar to machinery. My results were very random and unpredictable whereas the machinery should show consistent and very stable results. Even if my results showed some improvments, my results cannot conclude that humans are similar to machinery because machines mimics the same movement and can't really learn from practice ( like human do ).
Yes, I do agree partially with what you said. I think that humans are quite different from machines. The results from the experiment did support this notion because my results were also pretty random and inconsistent. As long as a human variable is involved, I do not think consistent results can follow.
Yet, I saw the description of humans being similar to machinery in the Gletiman book in a different light. That is, the whole mechanism of the body and nervous system reacting to a stimulus and showing a response can be seen as some sort of "machinery" that the brain is involved in. Thus, if looking at the whole experiment itself, the way that the body reacted to catching the falling ruler, and how even showed some improvement each time with practice, show the machine-like functions of the brain (the parts of the brain working together to create this response and registering in data, almost like a computer).
I also do not agree with Gleitman. Humans are not like machines. Machines are more consistent and set on a regular pattern. Unlike machines humans can make mistakes and improve throughout an experiment. Machines are programmed to do what they are told they cannot change their thought process unlike humans.
-- Edited by 102intro on Tuesday 15th of September 2009 03:02:33 PM
I also agree with your conclusion. Humans are not machines since humans cannot produce stable results or patterns like machines. Machines also do not think like humans and thus cannot improve performance through practice or concentration.
-- Edited by 102intro on Tuesday 15th of September 2009 03:35:45 PM
pen name: 151515 I agree with your opinion. Humans are very sporadic compared to machines. If we were machines, all our numbers would be a consistent number and not have any variations at all. The fact that we improve with more practice supports the fact that we are nothing like machines.
Machines and humans are very different in nature. Humans can focus learn, and streamline their reaction and thought process while machines give the same output the same way every time. By focusing on the stimulus I was able to greatly decrease my reaction time. My other data seemed very random and didn't show a steady decrease, however. A machine would have simply cranked out the same results over and over again.
I dont believe the trials support the claim that humans are machines, because most people's results were very random and spaced out. A machine would have had predictable and stable results. While humans are very complex organisms, i dont think the view of them as machines can be supported, at least not by this set of evidence
I also agree that the comparison of human response to a machine is not a good analogy based on this lab. My results varied too much to be considered "machine-like" which are typically thought of being precise and accurate. Also machines are incapable of anticipation and losing focus which I found to be issues with my results.
I do agree that humans are not like machines, but I also agree that the experiment shows that humans could be compared to machines because we do perform functions from triggering in our brain. My results showed that I improved when using my dominant hand that I relied on my brain to execute my functions. Even when not paying attention, it is almost machine-like that we can still catch the ruler without even realizing.
