There wasn't a strong correlation between the number of times I practiced and how fast my reaction time was, but there was at least a little bit of improvement. I think it's one of those things where if you continue to do it over a longer trial period, more of a correlation will show up. Also, there was a definite improvement from my very first (baseline) trial and all of the following trials.
In my view, this doesn't quite lend itself to thinking about the brain as a machine, because machines are built to be efficient from the start-they do not need to learn to do a task, they are simply programmed to do it. They do not start out with the programming to be able to accomplish something at a certain speed then gradually become faster using the same programming. If anything, it would be the opposite, because machines deteriorate physically and as they age they rust and become less efficient. Since humans are able to improve by themselves, I do not think they should be compared too closely to machines.
Overall I agree with your statement, however, I would argue that some machines are not built from the starting point as efficient pieces of hardware and software. They can learn to do a task, eg. cell-phones T-9 text program gradually learns and incorporates the different spellings the cell phone user inputs. Is this not a learning process done by a machine?
Yet, I do agree that humans should not be compared to machines, but more so on the grounds that machines lack the ability to think beyond the normal and to experience life's very limits. Machines could never inspire and create great things, though they can be the product of greatness. So, humans should only be compared closely to machines as a model of inspiration for the development of machines.
