This lab does not support the humans as machine's theory. As per my results, it was clear that there were large variations in my reaction times. Machines perform one task at a time, focusing all of their attention to the one task at hand (though it may be one task in a series of other tasks). Humans however have the ability to be distracted and process other information simultaneously. This phenomena is what sets humans apart from machines.
penname = tjelliso I agree with this analysis, man can't be compared to machines. Although the human body works in a certain systematic way it has the ability to change to unexpected external stimuli. This adaptivity is what allows us to be different from machines
I agree. There is too much variability in these trials to support the concept that humans are similar to machines. Machines can hone in on one variable, in this case the falling ruler, but humans are too multidimensional to do the same thing, the same way on every trial.
While a machine may not focus on a subtle distraction, a human may. Situations are dynamic to the point that performance will vary based on an extremely large number of variables. This is not the case in machines, where performance is easily predictable.
I agree. The results from the ruler lab did not support the view of humans as machines. Machines follow a set of tasks in an assigned order. My reaction times varied greatly. Especially when my partner tried to fake me out. My reaction time did improve, but only very slightly as there were other factors in the experiment. Namely, the other person and what I was focusing on. My reaction times differed by hand, and for a machine, they should be the same
