4.The results of this lab does not support the view of humans as machines as Descartes notes in chapter three because if humans were more machine-like the results of this lab would be more constant and practice would indeed make perfect. But because the results are jumpy and inconsistent a complete contrast to a machine which is constant and pattern forming - it can be concluded that humans cannot be viewed as machines.
-- Edited by 102intro on Monday 14th of September 2009 10:03:25 PM
I agree with your opinion. Varied reaction times from the data gathered by experiment reflect that humans are not like machines. We are not programmed to carry out actions flawlessly and in one certain way like computers are. There is room for humans to perform actions while contemplating specific aspects of the movement, like how we were able to catch the ruler by either focusing on the ruler or focusing on the actual movement itself. Because the reaction times for catching the ruler were dependent upon which of these aspects we were focusing on, this shows that we are not computer-like, otherwise these times would have been the same. If we were like machines, our reaction times would have been consistent from the start and would not have improved or fluctuated. Thus, the lab did not support the view of humans as machines.
