The results of my experiments do not support the idea that humans are like machines. Machines are programmed once and then execute that set of instructions. That being said, there is a certain precision that the machine is allowed to operate in. That still does not help the situation because in my case, it was clear that my results were improving but still sporadic, something that is very unlikely to be the case of a machine operating within spec. It is in theory possible that these results would be of a machine that has artificial learning software installed, but even in this case it would not support the idea that humans are like machines.
I like the contrast you mention between machines that are "programmed once and then execute" and machines with artificial learning software. It's pretty clear that if we are machines, we are constantly being reprogrammed by all the information coming in through our senses. So, the first kind of machine is out, but the second is still possible. The data you gathered could be the result of a flexible machine or of a non-machine. It doesn't point one way or another. However, what kind of data would show one or the other? Is it possible to differentiate between the two? There has been much debate on this topic, but in the end, I don't think it is possible to differentiate.
