I do not support the view of humans as machines. My data did not show any kind pattern. The results varied a lot and were inconsistent. Machines are programmed to complete tasks consistently with very little variability. If humans were more like machines, that means that my reaction times should have been consistent.
I agree with the statement. My results were varied and did not show any sort of pattern or ways of cutting down reaction time when focusing on different aspects of the experiment. I assume we are programmed in some manner, but not as much as to do every task so calculated, and so exact each time.
I agree with this statement. My results were also very varied, especially when I used my non-dominant hand. I feel that machines complete the same task every time but my results were not consistent. My results with my non-dominant hand improved with practice, this would not have happened if humans were machines, because all results would be the same.
My results showed a fairly good precision, and this does connect to the human-machine theory. However, my results improved over time and this would not have been seen in machines. As stated above, they would have had a much greater consistency between results.
I agree with this statement because machines are supposed to be consistent however my results were very inconsistent, some were a lot higher and some were a lot lower. Also the results for my left and right hand were inconsistent which shows a human quality. We also have the ability to focus on a certain thing while performing the task such as the ruler or our hand which can change the results.
I agree with your posting. My results of this lab refute the view of humans as machines. Firstly, my results were inconsistent and imperfect, whereas unlike humans, machines can be programmed in a way that they make the same actions consistently. Secondly, my reaction time did improve slightly overall, which is something a machine would fail to do. A machine cannot gain experience and improve with practice (however with practice humans can program improved machines.
I agree that this lab disproves the view of humans as machines, but I've yet to see a convincing argument.
Yes, many machines are very consistent in reaction-time results. However, many machines are variable in this sense too, depending on how they are designed - facial recognition machines can be 100% accurate in labs and not function in public settings.
I think the main consideration should be the external stimuli - a machine cannot process and change it's performance based on a new condition it's not programmed to understand, and yet, humans can.
I feel that this lab does little to support the theory in either direction. As Dr. NoHow said, a machine may be variable in reaction time. think about loading a webpage on your computer (a machine) . the same site may take 1 second to load one day, but 90 seconds a week later. These times rely on so many different factors. It would be great if we could say that the ruler lab was done in a perfectly controlled environment, but that is never the case. Something as small as the twitch in the hand of the person holding the ruler, or the slight pendulum motion of the ruler may have a great impact on the persons response to a sudden drop of the ruler. So, this does nothing in my mind to disprove the machine theory, but the opposite is also impossible to say, as were we completely not machine-like, we could expect the same data.
I agree that this lab disproves the view of humans as machines, but I've yet to see a convincing argument.
Yes, many machines are very consistent in reaction-time results. However, many machines are variable in this sense too, depending on how they are designed - facial recognition machines can be 100% accurate in labs and not function in public settings.
I think the main consideration should be the external stimuli - a machine cannot process and change it's performance based on a new condition it's not programmed to understand, and yet, humans can.
I agree. However, if we are taking this only within the context of this specific experiment, then we can safely say that humans are not machines. Obviously it was far from being a "perfect" experiment, but taken within this context, humans vary too much to be similar to machines.
My imperfect results support Green's proposition that humans are unlike machines. My lab data not only varied in time, but also, while I was performing the experiment, I found that the distance between my forefinger and thumb decreased each trial run, a variable in the experiment. A machine would not have such liberty in its trials.
We must also take into account the psychological pressures to do better each trial run, which may contribute to poor or better performance.
However, in response to Too Soon, I do feel that modern day technology will allow a machine to go through an imperfect trial run, analyze its discrepancy, and modify its actions to produce the desired trial; the machine is thus, improving.
