After reading several of the responses on this forum, it seems that I have a somewhat differentiated opinion on this matter. I think of a machine as a methodical apparatus that offers consistent results for the most part, but is still highly capable of producing an unexpected result. For instance, a machine whose job is to screw bolts could absolutely leave one too loose or too tight. For the most part, however, this machine will screw the bolts on at a consistent level, and the word consistency certainly does not imply perfection or flawlessness.
In this lab, my reaction times hovered around the same times for the most part. They were obviously nowhere near perfect, but very rarely was there an extremely fast or extremely slow result (a very loose or a very tight bolt). Yes, I am a human, and have the abilitiy to learn and adapt from previous trials to try to improve results. In this lab, however, I don't believe the fact that I have these abilities is a factor. I do not feel that practice and experience in this lab improved or slowed my reaction time; I simply saw the ruler drop and grabbed it. Much like a machine, I instinctively reacted the way I was processed to do so.
Yes, you may bring up the fact that when focusing on the response, my times were consistently faster than when I was focusing on the stimulus, and obviously machines can't "focus." They are, however, capable of having multiple settings or concentrations. If asked to do so, machines are quite capable of reacting in different ways at different rates to stimuli.
-- Edited by EaglesFan15 on Tuesday 15th of September 2009 11:36:22 PM
I agree that it would be inaccurate to assume that machines perform the task they are programmed to do perfectly. Much like your own lab, my times were not always exactly the same, but there were no significant deviations. I agree that the fact that we are able to "learn" from past trials is somewhat useless because the time at which he ruler was dropped was supposed to unpredictable.
