After reading and reviewing the results from the experiment, I feel that my results suggest that humans are machines. Looking at my data, all of my test runs were about the same number in inches and the results did not vary hand to hand. Also my results improved over time. This is equivalent to learning a task and performing it over and over again with accuracy. When testing the stimulus vs response the average of both were the same. This goes to show that no matter what I was focusing on I would get the same output in the end. If this doesn't prove I am a machine, I don't know what else would!
I am surprised that you found your results to lack variation and to improve with practice.
My results strongly persuaded me that we are not machines, as my reaction time fluctuated greatly throughout the experiment. Also, the practice did not give any obvious improvement, if anything they showed the opposite, which wouldn't be the result I'd expect from a machine.
I believe our bodies are much more complex than any machinery, and this complexity is why we aren't as efficient and dependable. On the upside, we do get the intelligent ideas and creativity that comes from our complexity.
Oh, and I noted that what I focus on hardly mattered, but forcing myself to completely focus did make my reaction time better.
I am also surprised that you did not have any variation. In any experiment that is as poorly designed as this one, variation is to be expected. The person who drops the ruler does not do it the same each time which affects the results, as well as many other things related to this experiment.
-- Edited by 102intro on Tuesday 15th of September 2009 04:03:59 PM
Wow, your data is amazing. I bet you are a really consistent person. In my data collection, I have quite a few variations and they often are random, meaning that when the trend of the reaction times were heading downwards, suddenly I would have one that is slow and sticks out. One thing I would like to comment about your point: Yes your data indeed shows that you have a high accuracy. But that does not mean that you are like a machine. I think you mentioned about how your data shows improvement. In the machine world, there is no such thing as learning, as it is a mechanism uniquely developed in organisms only. Machines would only improve if people made better parts or programmed them more efficiently, and this enhancement do not come from the machines themselves, but from external factors. Therefore, I do not agree about your claim that humans are machines.
This is a naive way of looking at machines. It's been shown many times that machines are capable of learning as well. Although, arguably, they are not learning the same way we are but there have been many cases where machines (in the form of computers) have been able to either accomplish a task without explicit programming of the task or just simply get better at a task.
One can argue that this learning algorithms have to be programmed also but if one considers the many aspects of machines' performance where they simply surpass humans, it should be duly noted that machines do learn and get better over time.
Maybe we are machines and we are all hooked up to one main computer network called skynet and one day we will all get told to kill the humans and we will have to keep going back in time to try to kill john connor and they will make like a billion sequals.
Many points in your response demonstrate that you do things a machine could never do. For example, you "feel" your results suggest humans are machines. Machines cannot "feel". Also your results improved over time. You state that "This is equivalent to learning a task and performing it over and over again with accuracy." That is absolutely true. Therefore, unlike a machine, you can learn. Machines do not improve over time, unless a human, using thought, changes how the machine works to make it improve. Your results seem to be closest to those of a machine though, since you seem to either lack or have minimal variance in your results. This leads me to ask a thoughtful question: what results on this lab would best support the idea that humans are machines, and how common are these "ideal" results among humans?
