Austin Fontaine 
Megan Novelli It was brought up in class (and believed by several philosophers in the Age of Reason) that man is perceived as a machine. This view can range from flat-out criticism, to that of a “complex” machine (as did Descartes), all the way to Julien de la Mettrie on the opposite extreme, that man at every level behaves in a mechanistic manner. But just how true or how extensive is the idea?
Behaviorialists most certainly would agree to varying extremes. The fact (as has been demonstrated in repeated experiments and therapies) that people can be “programmed” by pairing stimuli and responses over time doesn’t seem to contest this idea, and in fact supports it fairly heavily. The overwhelming effectiveness of behavioralist therapies for a majority of psychological disorders is another harrowing indication of some truth to the notion. There was even a study conducted (Benjamin Libet) that claimed the neural signal to “act” was actually sent before participants announced their intent to act (as they were asked) challenging the very concept of free will.
Are we just machines programmed from birth, and further engineered by the environment dictating how we develop and how we will respond? Is choice an illusion, with reasoning applied only after our actions as some sort of meek justification that provides us with some sense of autonomy? I find it kind of funny that these thoughts that we may have considered absurd during such earlier times turn out to be real quandaries even today.
I suppose that is what the field of psychology is all about. Asking the questions to which the answers are hardest to provide. What I find the most curious of all that is how universally everyone seems to revolt at the idea, how quickly we are to retaliate against the mere mention that our choices might not be our own, that we might not be in control of something so fundamental as our very thoughts and actions. I guess the most harrowing question of all is how would we ever know?
Josh Morrison
1:25 am, 09.17.10
To me the most interesting part of the debate over how mechanic we are is the role of the subconscious. If we are mechanic in nature, does that preclude the existence of subconscious thought? A lot of people believe that a lot of our most intense thoughts and emotions are handled subconsciously and that’s how a lot of important decisions are made. However, if we are mechanic, and I don’t know how valid this is, it doesn’t seem possible for this to be the case. Instead it seems to suggest that we have protocol embedded within us that dictates how we act in particular situations. Of course, I could be entirely misunderstanding the use of the term mechanic. The construct I have of that term is very connotative and thus potentially not the most accurate.
Jonathan Sanders
12:35 pm, 09.19.10
I have an extremely difficult time believing the theory that man is a biological machine. The root of my angst lies in the fact that as humans we have emotions, feelings, and a soul. If we were machines then these three human characteristics could not exist. Mechanism can be argued to explain reactions, impulses, and even a plethora of behaviors, but it cannot explain that which we cannot grasp physically. Love and companionship cannot be explained by the mechanist theory and if it could I might buy into it a little more.
Jordan Johnson
9:50 pm, 09.19.10
I do believe that man is a biological machine through and through, but the crazy thing is that each machine is different in varying ways, how awesome is that. One of the things that convinces me that we are machines is muscle memory and how the body can remember and get better at something just by repeating a motion or even things such as the fight or flight reaction that a person can have. Also the body’s expulsion of certain chemicals from the body such as alcohol or other drugs. The body to me just seems like an extremely complicated biological machine, and so i think its a good question whether that could be apart of the conversation in free will versus determinism, but one could argue that each machine is programed with free will or that every move is calculated by the body so i don’t believe it can be used in the argument usefully. Great post!
Amy McLean
10:16 pm, 09.19.10
I agree with Jonathan in that I am interested to see how emotions play a part in the idea that man is a machine. I see how Behaviorists would agree that certain events might program us to act a certain way. However, does it also program us to feel a certain way even if we do not act upon it?
Danielle Urias
10:40 pm, 09.19.10
In regards to the nature v. nurture aspect of your question, I would definitely agree in saying our environment and surroundings have a huge impact on how we are shaped as people. The whole premise behind behaviorism is that one can be unknowingly guided and conditioned by pairing particular stimuli and responses together.
As for considering humans in a completely deterministic light, as machines programmed from birth, I would have to agree with Jonathan. The human condition is too complex to accept such a narrow view.
Anne Weaver
11:34 pm, 09.19.10
I would have to agree more with Jonathan and Danielle. The foundation of this idea of machine vs emotions/feelings, etc. lies in how one views man. Is he merely a biological being or a spiritual manifestation or is he some combination of both? I think we are not only a combination of both but each plays against the other. One’s spiritual/mental orientation can create a range of physical responses and vise versa. The issue isn’t as concrete as we would like it to be, but we must grapple with ambiguities.
Jeremiah Blalock
7:55 am, 09.20.10
i would have to say that we act as machines by nature, but living beings when you discover this. Sounds a little out there, but let me explain. When someone shows you the Pavlov experiment about how you can condition someone to respond based on bringing a neutral stimulus into an unconditioned situation, repeatedly pairing the neutral stimulus with the unconditioned stimulus, then after several times of this pairing take out the unconditional stimulus altogether. you can still fashion the response that the unconditioned stimulus provided with the neutral stimulus. this works good on paper, and also in experiment, however this also makes us think about how we ourselves would react. Even deeper than that, when something along that nature were to start to happen, noticing a pattern in how things are being presented, we would wise up to this experiment and know someone is trying to get us to play part in the experiment. We tend to open our minds to things, and in most cases will figure out whats going on and be the person to say, “no, i’ve seen this before, nuh uh.” just a little food for thought on how we can be subjected to routine, mundane, and repetitious actions however we can also be the individual who steps out of this funk and sees it all, not just what’s present.
Rebekah Hernandez
12:11 pm, 09.20.10
Your post really got me thinking; I mean really thinking and I appreciate that. In the last sentence, you asked if we could ever know whether man is a machine. In answer to that I would say that, as far as I can see in the future, I do not think we will ever fully know if man is a machine or product of his environment. I think people will think it even funnier than you do know when the same questions you pose will be asked centuries from now. That we will never know can be a very scary thought. Fear of the unknown… What may never be known. However, in the meantime I have chosen to believe certain things unless data can prove me wrong, in which case I may question my belief in God (for further explanation see my post). Sometimes the power of choice is the only thing that can alleviate the tension between knowing and not knowing.