This experiment does not support the view that the human mind is similar to a machine. In theory, a machine's results would have been consistent from the baseline test to the last trial of the experiment. In other words, a machine would have been able to perform this experiment with little to no variance in reaction time due to the absence of human error.
In contrast, my results tended to vary in the beginning and slowly get more consistent by the end. While a human can learn from past experience and work to make his or her actions more efficient through practice, this process is not the same involving machines.
I agree with this post. Humans grow and learn from experience unlike machines. My times got better the more I caught the ruler. Also, I responded more quickly to my own response than to the stimulus, which would be the opposite involving a machine.
I had similar results. My time improved with practice, proof of human learning, which is a major difference between humans and machines. If humans were the same as machines, then my results wouldn't have changed over time; a machine would be just as good (or bad) at ruler catching no matter what.
