I believe that my results do indeed support chapter 2 of Gleitman. My results weren't perfectly consistent, as may be expected from a "machine", but I think the existence of a pattern at all somewhat supports the text. It is also notable that there are many internal processes and other influencing factors affecting my behavior...So while I may not be perfectly consistent, this may be due to a multitude of other factors that aren't being considered. In other words, my performance may have been perfectly consistent if I were actually taking all of the influencing factors into account (biological and physical factors in every sense).
For example, consider a ball dropped 5 times from the same spot, and each time, it's contact point with the ground is marked. Each time, the ball lands in the same spot.
Now consider someone turning on a HUGE fan with predictable, measured airflow. If we drop the ball again with the fan blowing in its path, the ball will NOT land in the same spot.
Does this mean that the laws of physics are inconsistent, and thus not "machine-like"? Absolutely not, this simply means that there are other factors skewing what we consider to be "consistent" output/result.
