Question 4: How do the results of this lab support (or not support) the view of humans as machines as discussed in Chapter two of Gleitman?
The differing results between our dominant and non-dominant hands prove that we humans are not like machines. Unlike machines that are able to perform consistently based on their underlying programming commands, human performances are affected by variety of factors such as external and internal distractions, physical conditions, emotion among others.
In addition, interestingly, humans have the capabilities to alter their results through repeated trials, as observed from the decreasing required time to catch the ruler after every repetition. Consequently, however, without continued practice, human performances may worsen.
I certainly agree with you. Humans are more complex than machines, and it is due to this level of complexity that we aren't as consistently efficient as machines. However, a human has the capability of practicing a task and improving over time, whereas a machine performs at a constant rate.
Indeed humans are not machines. My average reaction time improved with each test, but each individual time was different than the last. Machines would produce the same results each time; a stimulus would produce the same exact response.
This being said, our nervous system is still like a machine. Once an action potential is triggered by the stimulus, the processes that follow are the same every time. I guess for humans it is just a matter of how the stimulus is received. However, when I focused on the stimulus, my times were much slower.
