Talk:Cyborg/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Bold textI want to be a cyborg.

Anyways.. cyborg is basically defines as adding technology onto living beings in order to enhance or make them more capable of doing things an average being of their species wouldn't be able to do. I can't see through walls however a bionical eye could help me. Having any type of technological devices added onto me that could relay information or process it and then give a command would create me into a cyborg. And yeah that blind startrek dude was a cyborg. And also an artifical heart is a cybernetic part. "Machines dehumanize..." - Kilroy

p.s. i'm into linguistics and funny enough so are you.. you deciphered it... ^_^ maybe they are linguistic experts.. o_o nihongo wo hanasu ka.

A more specific definition could an organic life form which has artificial machines controled by its nerves. A machine with organic components grown on to it might also be considered a cyborg. In the movies a cyborg is someone with both characteristics of a person, and characteristics of a machine.


I would like to suggest that the word "portmanteau" be replaced by the words "formed from" because most persons looking up "cyborg" will probably not be linguistic specialists. I know that while I love expanding my (very large) vocabulary, unneeded complications get in the way of my best us of this very wonderful encycloped project.209.181.120.4

Contents

[edit] Defining Cyborg

I was wondering how exactly the term cyborg would be defined - especially in the fictional realm? I know in the article cyborg is defined as "...designate a creature which is a mixture of organic and mechanical parts."

In the strictest sense, it sounds like it would make anyone who has any sort of artifical implant or replacement parts a cyborg. Take for example Star Trek. For example, Jean-Luc Picard and Geordi La Forge have artifical implants. Picard has an artifical heart that replaced his real heart which was damaged in a fight. La Forge was born blind, and was given sight via artifical implants. Would they be considered cyborgs because they have these mechanical part? Here would we look at a strict definition of the term, or something else?

JesseG 07:30, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Um, as they say on Slashdot, "RTFA":
"According to some definitions of the term, the metaphysical and physical attachments humanity has with even the most basic technologies have already made us cyborgs. In a typical example, a human fitted with a heart pacemaker might be considered a cyborg, since s/he is incapable of surviving without the mechanical part." (and so on)
The article should, and does, discuss this very ambiguity, not confine itself to one "strict" definition. The fact that it is ambiguous is interesting in itself. - IMSoP 18:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) [PS: I know this is an old question, but the article section quoted has not been changed since before then]
Regarding the definition and orgin of the word, it seems to have a long history of changing meanings. Norbert Weiner coined the term "cybernetics" in the summer of 1947 to designate the science of control and communications processes that were common to both animals and machines. So originally, a normal, completely biological human was considered a "cybernetic organism". No machine or non-organic parts of any kind were needed. Humans simply share certain control processes that are defined as cybernetic, such as feedback loops, with machines.
I believe Dr. Manfred Clynes coined the word "cyborg" in the early 1960s while working at NASA. To quote from his web page: "His concept of a cyborg was of a symbiosis between a person and a machine, creating an interaction that would enhance life, such as a man and his bicycle, but in other pursuits, such as space travel. (This original meaning has been corrupted in the age of Terminator movies.)" So Clynes has already altered the meaning somewhat by requiring a human to have a "symbiosis" with one or more machine components to qualify as a cyborg. Ironically, in Clynes' example of a man and bicycle, the human rather than the bicycle is the cybernetic component.
In Science Fiction, the earliest well known citation is Robert Heinlein's use in his serialized version of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress which appeared in If magazine begining in December of 1965 (the term itself didn't occur until the March of 1966 installment of the story). Heinlein used the term in a negative sense similar to Clynes definition but taken to an extreme: "Man, I saw one disturbing report. It was claimed that attempts are being made at the University of Peiping to combine computers with human brains to achieve massive capacity. A computing Cyborg".
The exact meaning in SF varies widely but it usually means a composite organism made of some combination of biological and machine parts. The exact usage varies depending on the author, as evidenced by the interminable (pun intended) argument below over whether or not the fictional "terminator" has the right combination of organic and inorganic parts to qualify for various SF fans favored definitions. Given the dynamic history of the term, an inclusive usage of the term here is probably wise.
--Srainwater 06:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Issues

The article currently says "clothing can be seen as a cybernetic modification of skin". I don't think this statement is true for any definition of cybernetic that I've seen. The control and communication processes that occur within all animals and some machines are cybernetic. There is nothing cybernetic going on within an inanimate piece of fabric. The only way I can see this statement making any sense at all is if you are talking about a hypothetical fabric which incorporates some type of computational process that is able to communicate with the human in some way (there are numerous examples of this in SF).

--Srainwater 06:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] some of the guys in the examples aren't cyborgs

masterchief isn't a cyborg, he is just a guy in a suit, and terminator is completely a robot, only covered with organic stuff because of space-travel limitations (that's why he came "now" naked)

And AFAIK droids are simple robots, not cyborgs.

The details at Master Chief (Halo)#Character history seem to pretty clearly fit just about any definition of "cyborg" to me: having "Advanced carbide ceramic material grafted onto bones to increase durability" is a lot more than being "a guy in a suit".
T-800 contains similarly persuasive clues that at least that model of Terminator used genuine living skin; I'd say making flesh and skin "work" around an artificial skeleton is pretty much mixing organic and artificial (although from the other direction, as it were, compared to most examples). This one's more open to interpretation, I guess, but it seems to me that it's more than "covered with" "organic stuff", it's a pretty intrinsic part of him.
As for droids, I can't see to what you're referring; if you mean the listing of "Admiral Screed", note that "Droids" is the name of the cartoon, in which s/he was presumably a character. - IMSoP 19:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The T-800 Terminator is completely a cyborg. In the film, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, the chracter specifically says, "I am a cybernic organism. Living tissue over metal endoskeleton." The very word cyborg means cybernetic organism. Evmore 19 Jul 2005

On the other hand, the humans in the movie describe him as a robot, a machine, and at the end of the first film he proves that he can function very well without that skin covering. It is just a covering, like the full plate armour of the medieval knights. I went through the list again and he remains the only "problem". If we keep him in the list then we logically have to add other robots with a skin covering, like the famous Maria from Metropolis (1927 film) or the androids from the original Star Trek episode "I, Mudd" or Mahoro from Mahoromatic and of course, the T2000 model terminator from the second film, since it morphs into a "living" skin for time traveling and other purposes, and the terminatrix form the third film too etc. etc. --AlainV 02:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robots with a bit of flesh are not cyborgs

I removed the Terminator because all of the prose text in this article (the body of the article, above the lists) defines a cyborg as a human with artificial parts added. Even in the most general sense, this cannot include a machine with human parts added to it. This approach is common with cyborg articles in print encyclopaedias and in books. If the Terminator were to be kept in this article then the text would have to be changed to include a discussion which states the debatable nature of this inclusion and which would make references to science fiction literature (such as Asimov's) where some robots have also had skin and other human parts, but were not called cyborgs. And, of course, since the Terminator would have been added, other robots with skin or other human parts would have to be added to this list. Take a look also at the paragraph I wrote just above this one. --AlainV 18:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Not so fast! I've reverted mention of the Terminator as being a cyborg; it's completely valid, given its direct quotation from the movie and through the definition. As well, his being a cyborg is not problematic and doesn't preclude him from being a machine (as referrred to throughout the movie) ... he's just a biomechanical robot.
Other notations may be just as valid (and included) or, conversely, more suspect, particularly if they weren't quoted as such:
  • I think the crucial component with 'skin' is whether or not it's natural or synthetic: can we confirm or deny that Maria from Metropolis had either? If not, we should leave that out, since she was clearly and apprarently a droid.
  • On the other end of the stick: even though he is universally known and referred to as an android (and 'alive' as an artificial lifeform), Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation does have (and is referred to as having) "bioplast sheeting" as 'skin'. :) Whether this is merely a description for 'skin' similar to or derived from something natural is unclear; however, I think its natural nature is nixed when one considers that the Borg Queen in Star Trek: First Contact attempted to graft living skin onto him and 'to tempt him with flesh.' (A segue: when I heard her say this, I immediately thought of the movie Videodrome :).)
  • Though the T2000 has mimetic abilities ("mimetic polyalloy"; "liquid metal"), it is not noted in the movie as being at all biological, i.e, robotic.
  • However, if only organic matter can time travel, perhaps they are all cyborgs on a purely cellular or molecular level (e.g., nanotechnology, as with Borg nanoprobes) ... and, thus, not purely robotic? The presence of skin on T-800/850 implies an essential function, in the least to facilitate infiltration. E Pluribus Anthony 05:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure of Mahoro. And as for ST "I, Mudd," I don't believe there was any mention of biological components in those beings and, thus, are referred to appropriately as androids. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 18:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
To me this is a moot point. Why not include a section on cyborgs that are robots with a bit of flesh. The focus of this article shouldn't just be a list of cyborgs and arguments over which cyborgs should be included in that list -- that makes for a pretty uninformative article. It would be cool if more substance was added. That's my 2 cents. --Ben Houston 21:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, and a possibility. I wonder whether or not this should extend both ways, i.e., 'lifeforms with a few prosthetic implants are not cyborgs'; strictly speaking, for example, Captain Picard and Lt. Cmdr LaForge are cyborgs (given their prosthetic heart and eyes, respectively, and even my mom in the real world who has a prosthetic mitral valve) though are clearly ... autonomous behaviourally (unless of course, you're a B. F. Skinner fan. :)) E Pluribus Anthony 22:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ben Houston. We could make a separate paragraph or section for machines with human parts and note that these do not fit any of the classical definitions of a cyborg or the philosophical debates on augmented humans as being cyborgs. In the many philosophical and sociological books dealing with the nature of augmented humanity, a human with advanced prosthetics devices is oftern called a cyborg, even if such a use of the term might seem incorrect to a science fiction enthusiast. Becasue this use is widespread we can't avoid it. We should of course mention in such entries as the Terminator that it does not fit into the classical definition. By the way, the Terminator might refer to itself as a cybernetic organism in a film but other characters in the same film, aware of its full reality, refer to as a machine. It is outvoted in a sense. But in another, I wonder if we are right in attributing any kind of value to such declarations by characters, since this would be doing original research, and that is not permitted in Wikipedia. --AlainV 02:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but the 'moot' point may be the original query to begin with. As an aside, the Terminator mention was initially removed completely, despite movie quotations to the contrary (and even despite the basic definition of "cyborg" and its inherent value, so the usage is correct and is not outvoted per se) and have since added extra information comparing him to a knight. I believe the removal and your comparison, in and of itself, may constitute original research since this viewpoint differs from others, from what has been cited and, importantly, what can be verified. Further to that, please cite the "many" books you refer to justifying the initial removal of this information and your subsequent comparison.
As well, there's a distinct difference between medieval knights and the Terminator: knights did not have implants permanently installed that were integral to their function (did they?); armour is a tool and an enhancement. They may very well be rudimentary cyborgs in the strictest sense, but so are we ... that is, those with synthetic fillings for dental cavities. The potential list is endless.
I'm perfectly fine with including a different section or list outlining differences on both sides of the spectrum and in clarifying others (i.e., embracing your initial query and my response to it). But until then, the T reference should remain without user interpretation. E Pluribus Anthony 22:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not a certified expert but I've followed the wearable computer scene. My understanding, and if I had time I'd find some references, is that cyborg is a fairly badly defined term. Any significant (this being the operative word) partnership between a biological organism and its technological extensions can be considered a cybernetic organism. What is significant is up to debate. I have heard reputable people say that eyeglasses is a functional extension of our beings. Check out the work by this guy to see how blurring the line is [1]. I suggest instead of fights on this page, why not explain that it is difficult to define the term. This is a reoccuring fight in the area thus let's document it instead of rehashing it -- let's be "meta". ;-) --Ben Houston 12:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello there! Thanks for your comments. I agree with them but also challenge assertions that may be to the contrary, hence my response. I support including a separate section or somehow expanding the article to describe this 'biosynthetic' ambiguity both ways. As for "fights", I not at all consider this one of them, as such: they are discussions to enhance the content of Wp and articles thereof. Thoughts? Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 13:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You are adding robots and androids to an article about cyborgs. It makes sense to refer to androids or robots which have flesh on them (or in them such as the robot who wanted to be considered a man, and had a heart and other human parts transpnated in him, in one of Asimov's stories) but then you have to point out that these are absolutely not cyborgs. Not everybody will have the time to check out each link and then read each linked articleto be sure of that. I have checked again in "The Science Fiction Handbook" (edited by George S. Elrick) (p. 77) and "The science fiction encyclopedia" (edited by Peter Nicholls)(p. 151) (p. 151) and "The Oxford English dictionary" (unabridged, in 20 volumes)(Volume 4, p. 188) and it is quite clear in all these references that a cyborg is a human being augmented by machinery and not a machine wiht human parts added. --AlainV 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What examples are you referring to? You are incorrect: have I added Data? Have I added Maria? No: these are your (mis)interpretations of examples.
Any erroneous examples that were added previously have been edited or moved appropriately. Mea culpa. E Pluribus Anthony 11:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
You are trying to say that Terminator is not a cyborg, even considering verifiable on-screen evidence and a loose interpretation of dictionary meanings for the term: this was largely evidenced by your initial removal of this example. If you – or others – cannot take time to cite your sources and to properly interpret them, comment judiciously or refrain from doing so. E Pluribus Anthony 17:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, I have verified (I went to the library on my lunch break) the printed, reputable sources I have cited (and which I am now placing with full bibliographical detail at the end of the article) which clearly explain that a cyborg is a human augmented by machine elements. It is not a machine augmented by human elements, which is the case of the Terminator. I suspect it is also the case of some other entries in that list but I have not verified them completely yet. If that is not enough for you then the next official step to go before seeking mediation is to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion . This method however requires that we be the only two Wikipedia contributors arguing this point. So if there are others please speak up. If there are more and if we cannot agree between three or four persons (or more), then the next step is to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation --AlainV 01:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Just because you verify a definition, that doesn't discount information already available saying something else (e.g., general notions, on-screen quotations): remember, it's not about truth per se it's about verifiability. Provide one reference indicating the Terminator is not a cyborg (and I don't mean those that say he is also something else, like a robot or machine), as you contend and have not presented a reference for, and I will help you make appropriate editions. Moreover, the definition at the very beginning of the article allows for such ambiguity (e.g., cyborgs are mere human/synthetic hybrids, not just 'augments'); if so (and if incorrect), it is this that must be altered. However, I think the current definitions and explanations are sufficient. Providing general references is also a good thing, but not assigning them to comments/opinions made is not so.
I believe other Wikipedians have spoken up and have commented about the ambiguous definition/usage of the term "cyborg" and a necessary expansion of the article with appropriate elaborations about examples; this has not yet been done. Other user comments are invited. Until then and until you can provide direct, verifiable references disputing this or to the contrary, then that is clearly not enough. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 10:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand how you can place your personal intepretation (one character in a movie being right as opposed to the other characters) as being a more reliable source (for writing an encyclopedia article) than references written by professionals, edited by professionals and published by reputable houses. I do not see what you mena by "assigning the references" further than what I have already done. I will get further published references this weekend. Then we can proceed to "third opinion" and then mediation and arbitration if need be. --AlainV 19:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Where are your citations? Any? You've merely cited volumes (though helpful) in toto: I have cited why Terminator is there: there are various references in the movies and online to him being a cyborg, and definitions in the article. The burden of proof/disproof is on you.
References mean footnotes and links to information for assertions made. You have not done this, though everything in the article should probably be so referenced. If you can provide one direct, verifiable citation that says T is not a cyborg, I'm sure we can enhance the article appropriately; I can even help you find some; please ask.
Pending other user input, which I invite, a request for comment is probably the best option and logical next step. If you wish, we can initiate one. Proceed with caution regarding other means of dispute resolution: you may not get the result you expect. E Pluribus Anthony 19:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have given the exact pages of the reference books. I have also given the full bibliographic decription. This is the correct form in any scholarly enterprise. What more is needed? I am very much aware that the Web is full of ignorant texts decribing as cyborgs machines which are obviously androids or robots. I do not expect a particular, precise response in any dispute resolution process, within Wikippedia or outside it. --AlainV 20:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a style guide to aid in referencing and citing sources in Wikipedia. Essentially: add a footnote/endnote to the reference section, with a superscript notation for the appropriate notion (e.g., mention of T as a cyborg/robot) or similar.
Moreover, whether or not a text is 'ignorant' is beside the point: that is user interpretation without (as yet) a cited basis; if this can be verified and cited, all the power to you. E Pluribus Anthony 23:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require that each discrete bit of information have a superscipt annotation. I have given full references which comply with the suggested Wikipedia styles. You (or others) have more than enough to go and verify them in any large library, with the 20 volume OED in it, or with other specific SF reference volumes in it. --AlainV 03:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

What point of this are you not understanding? You are trying to further your view (and perhaps not a single one), that Terminator is not a cyborg but only a robot based solely on your interpretations of definitions. You have not provided any references saying Terminator is not a cyborg or have been unclear. Have you? I ask this again. You initiated this discussion, look at the section header, and attempted to remove him based on that. I, and others (see prior section), challenge this: he may be both based on what has been cited here. That is all Wp requires. And superscripting is only one example of referencing.
If you persist and are either unwilling or unable to verify your contentions by directly citing your sources (as requested and required by Wp), I may initiate an RfC regarding this. Understand? Until you do as requested, I am ending this discussion (others, however, can freely comment). E Pluribus Anthony 09:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

If what you request is a reputable article or some other text specifically saying or explaining why the Terminator is not a cyborg, you are asking for an impossibility. Think about it for a while. Any article or section of a book about cyborgs will discuss cyborgs in theory and with actual examples and will not single out specific machines which are not cyborgs, saying “x is patently not a cyborg”. By the way, since we are the only two going on in this vein with other third parties having already made comments, then a mediation (or an arbitration) would be the proper way to go, and not an rfc. --AlainV 07:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not a logical impossibility: if it were, it's because you cannot substantiate your assertion. I can cite many references indicating the Terminator is a cyborg; I can also cite at least one reference online (though am unsure about its authenticity) that directly indicates what you are trying to prove. If this Terminator-is-not-cyborg-but-only-robot debate is substantial enough, it should be easy to find references otherwise that support your position. Until you can produce, tough.
We need to actually field an RfC (and have not done so) before judging it ineffective; I guarantee you that a mediation or arbitration are unnecessary escalations that will not yield the results you expect (I speak from experience); particularly, the latter will most likely be thrown out before being considered if other options aren't explored and we'll still arrive at the same outcome. Save yourself disappointment: do your colloquial homework – properly research and cite your assertions/arguments (as requested many times, in accordance with Wp guidelines) before advancing them. End communication. E Pluribus Anthony 10:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you please then cite those references which you have proving that the Terminator is a cyborg. If you do not provide them, how can anybody verify them? I have provided mine both here on the discussion page and with full bibliographical detail on the article page. If you do not give those references I think that it would be quite decent for me to move any mention of the Terminator from the this page to another page. --AlainV 17:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I will append the information already presented above – mentioned in the movie itself, links to The Terminator article, and others, not only cited by me but others – with sources already indicated.
However, you are being extremely argumentative and still have not referenced your position; you have not at all cited your contention in any detail. You have not provided a single source to support your hereunto solitary position that the Terminator is only a robot. Until then, any attempts by you to remove the cyborg notation or any other legitimate ones will be reverted; I may also initiate an RfC regarding this and possibly move to have you sanctioned for your potentially disruptive engagements (e.g., WP:POINT). Furthermore, until you produce, I will also not discuss this with you further. Other users: feel free to comment. E Pluribus Anthony 18:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes: AlainV's current edition/removal of what may be construed as speculation (nanotechnology) is fine; I grant that and may include it if it can be cited.
Further to this, there are numerous mentions online regarding the Terminator, cyborgs, and nanotechnology; it is believed the T-X used nanotechnology, so it can be included in the article.
However, I still note your (still) failure to substantiate your original contention: there are at least two examples that address your viewpoint and contradicting the apparent "impossibility" of substantiating your argument. If this cannot be done, your argument has little merit and doesn't belong on Wp. In fact, your position above and acts are more demonstrative of possibly being a member of a colloquial "peanut gallery" than that of a worthwhile Wikipedian contributing to this article. In the future, please refrain from advancing a viewpoint and wasting collective time (like above!) until you can substantiate it. E Pluribus Anthony 14:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I can only applaud the effort you made in placing a reference at the end of the article,. At least now, finally I am beginning to understand what you mean when you talk about referencing and citing. But at the same time I have to point out that this not represent any kind of authority. The reference points to a Google search which gives the hundreds of thousands of results for a search for the words terminator and cyborg. I have made a Google search with the terms terminator and android and this has given me hundreds of thousands of results. I have also had thousands of results for the term combination of terminator and robot. I have obtained similar but smaller results doing Google searches with the exact terms and then with the terms using the Boolean “NOT” provided by using the minus signs for the exclusion, or the “without” option in the advanced search feature of Google. Thus, this constitutes proof, according to your logic, that the Terminator is a robot or an android, and not a cyborg.

Far from being an argumentative discourse with no value this exchange between us is a constructive undertaking. You write something, I go find things in the library (or on line) and sum them up and place them her. You respond to this and this sends me back to the library for more research, and then summing up. As long as this is not original research, just looking into reference books and scholarly articles, this is exactly what Wikipedia is all about: Collaborative work. Furthermore, by clearly stating a point of contention which is fundamental to any discussion of the cyborg- robot-android boundaries we are exposing the underpinnings of this article. And that is one of the greatest forces of Wikipedia. We know only in partial form, decades after, and for some articles only, what kind of controversies went on behind editors an writers behind articles and series of articles in print encyclopedias. --AlainV 17:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you are employing a logical fallacy to prove your unsubstantiated point; that is not my logic, it's your illogic. Your Google searches prove that references exist that the Terminator may be any of the options cited (robot, android, and cyborg). I have stated this from the get-go. You persist in trying to maintain that he is definitely not a cyborg but one of the other two, despite substantial evidence to the contrary. You still have not proved this/your contention and have improperly removed information that has been cited directly contradicting this.
I too have found some worth in fleshing out definitions, both here and elsewhere: just see here for another similar discussion I facilitated regarding 'non-fiction', based on incorrect information in Wp beforehand. While I also applaud you for providing references and for your investigations and am happy to engage in productive discussion/edits, it is your interpretation and actions that give pause. Summarily: until you demonstrate your case, this whole discussion is extraneous and I will continue to restore cited edits. And until you substantiate your solitary position that T is not a cyborg with a direct reference supporting this (as asked repeatedly), this discussion is ended.
And let me be clear: if you continue to promote this view without citing sources and if you persist in removing cited, verifiable information to the contrary, these may constitute disruptive acts on Wp and I may investigate having sanctions levied against you. E Pluribus Anthony 18:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I just made a Google search on "flat earth". I got millions of hits. This does not mean the Earth is flat. No matter how many Google hits you get with "terminator and cyborg" it does not make the Terminator a cyborg. Within the Terminator movies you have a character or character saying that the Terminator is a cyborg, while describing the Terminator as a machine entirely made up of mechanical and electronic parts, and covered with flesh and hair. The movies also actually give us scenes where that hair and flesh is taken off and we see the Terminator machine only, still functioning. So, one film has decided to re-define the term cyborg, against tradition in other films, TV series and SF literature, and against definitions of cyborgs in printed reference works, which you , and everybody else can look up and verify. If the film or film had decided to use the term "pipeline" instead of cyborg would that give you the authority to go to the pipeline article and give the Terminator as an example of a pipeline? Of course not. And it's the same with calling the Terminator a cyborg. --AlainV 02:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, you fail to acknowledge that everything stated and cited is within context, and the listing is of fictional characters! You will also find articles and references in Wikipedia to notions about the Earth being flat. Again, you employ a logical fallacy – just because notations exist that the Earth was considered flat, that doesn't mean it is flat: it merely means that citations exist that validate and verify that opinion. The same is true here: you have failed to cite your sources regarding this specific issue/topic – you (still) have not presented information directly supporting your argument and justifying your continual removal of legitimate citations/information. E Pluribus Anthony 03:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You are doing an incorrect use of information in the construction of a Wikipedia entry. I have given full scholarly citations in correct form and have taken into account traditions and standards for dealing with published fiction. You link to vague, meaningless Internet searches. And you have not integrated the result of the RFC process: "Although the Terminator appears to be a constructed mechanical being, rather than a human with added mechanical parts, he is frequently referred to in the films as a cyborg. His status as a hybrid being is confirmed in Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Instead you have made your interpretation of a compromise on it, which does not change at all the confusing nature of your note and its general contention that the Terminator is a cyborg, according to your unsupported beliefs. Also, you have kept in your own personal speculation about nanotechnology. I am changing things to reflect the suggested text given by the RFC process. --AlainV 17:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You are wholly incorrect and perhaps confused (if the discussion above is any indication): I have elaborated based on cited (and numerous) references (e.g., to movie texts, online references, etc.). As well, I've linked to an article in U.S. News and World Report that touches on the Terminator, liquid metal, and nanotechnology, so it's not my position. You have not: you have not linked or provided verifiable references that specifically deal with your position, and perist in making editions to support your unsubstantiated position/revision and outright deletions of valid information stating otherwise.
The vagueness and intransigence of your position has been stated from the get-go, even before this discussion. How many times do we have to ask you for references directly supporting your position? Providing references to definitions (as you have done) is wholly different than providing direct citations of information, which I've done. Your edition(s) to the article (e.g., "analogy" to a medieval knight) and removal of relevant info obfuscates the topic, and the RfC is not yet concluded. Yet, you persist in maintaining your position despite substantial evidence to the contrary. I have cited my verifiable sources, though acknowledge the potential necessity of revisions to text to further clarify the matter. Moreover: does your outright removal of information throughout at all satisfy any collaborative effort or incorporation of RfC results? NO. This is your ignorance and illogic at work.
Until you produce verifiable sources or until the RfC results in something else, I have and will revert your unjustified editions to the relevant statements, will not discuss this further with you, and will investigate corrective actions against you. Capiche? E Pluribus Anthony 18:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I cannot link to the precise page in the 20 volume Oxford English Dictionary entry or the science fiction encyclopedia entries I have also given in exact detail because they are not available on the Web. I have used Wikipedia standards for these printed sources, which anybody can verify in any large library. Your links to Google search results do not constitute sources. They are the equivalent of my linking to the search results of a library's digital catalog (its OPAC) with results for the subject entry term "cyborg" and/or "robot" and/or "android". This constitutes but a first step in non-original research and the collection of reliable sources. The US News and World Report article you linked to is a two part report and the section which talks about (very indirectly) one of the Terminator models is a section dealing with Liquid Metal and not with nanotechnology. That first step is essential but as such it is not a source or any form of authority. My original position still stands, I think that there should not be any mention of the Terminator in this article, because the links at the bottom to the Android, Robot, and other relevant articles provide sufficient access to the interesting impact the Terminator movies have had on the culture of SF. However, I have long ago realised that the construction of Wikipedia is based on compromises. That is why I have accepted the RFC suggestion, which does include reference to the Terminator. --AlainV 12:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is not a compromise: your explanation and edits are as yet insufficient. A compromise implies agreement, and this proposed alternative is not agreeable as of yet. What you think is not at issue: in Wp, it's what can be verified; I challenge your interpretations and uncited references. I cannot verify your assertions – type your references out: I have in the past and have provided valid online references otherwise (to movie texts already and, if necessary, a plethora of other sites that directly indicate and discuss the T as being a cyborg). (As well, the US News article directly addresses nanotechnology (read the heading), as do others in reference to T, but I'm willing to remove this for now.) Despite other references to the contrary, and I don't disagree with them, you have failed to provide a single reference indicating Terminator is not a cyborg. Your position is flawed at its very foundation: how can your position be at all authoritative if you cannot directly cite a single source, as repeatedly asked, to support it? Actually, no matter which way you skin the cat, your unverified assertions may constitute original research or, in the very least, do represent your point of view ... both of which are untenable in Wp.
Moreover, the RfC is not yet over. Until then or until the RfC demonstrates something different, the prior version will hold; it is that version that should be edited if at all, not subtituted with an incomplete, potentially obfuscating statement supporting your unverified viewpoint. And until you accord the proper respect of producing your references as requested and required by Wp, as I have, I will not discuss this hereafter with you. End communication. E Pluribus Anthony 16:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on The Terminator(s) as cyborg, as cited

A request for comment has been initiated based on the following:

Additional, lengthy discussion can be found above, and subsequent discussion/comments should occur (now, far) below. Thanks! 03:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I came from the RFC, and while I haven't checked the full history, the current inclusion of the Terminator in the list, with an explanatory footnote, seems roughly acceptable to me. The note could incorporate the stated objection a bit though; perhaps by beginning, "Although the Terminator appears to be a constructed mechanical being, rather than a human with added mechanical parts, he is frequently referred to in the films as a cyborg. His status as a hybrid being is confirmed in Terminator 2: Judgment Day..." or something similar. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi there! Thanks for your comments and attempts at compromise. The note appended to the current article actually does mention this (e.g., The Terminator's cyborg and robotic nature) and I think it prudent to include the relevant quotations upfront (a priori) to dispel users/decisions that may be contrary: the antagonist of this position (with the stated objection) has not produced anything directly that indicates the Terminator is not a cyborg but something else. However, I'm willing to enhance the note appropriately. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 06:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for this suggestion. It seems like an excellent way to put things. --AlainV 17:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes: a valid suggestion or something similar, i.e., not verbatim (with refinements). To that end, we should await additional commentary until this is resolved; the prior note has been restored (with revisions) until then. E Pluribus Anthony 18:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I like Josiah's compromise. We're talking about a fictional character -- if the movie states the Terminator is a cyborg, it seems reasonable to include it as an example. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes: I'm willing to concede such a similarly shorter, conciliatory statement if a consensus is arrived at or identified (given more time, which doesn't exist yet) and perhaps if references to the contrary (by the antagonist) is presented as requested, which has still not occurred. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 16:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I am fully in agreement with the compromise offered by Josiah Rowe and Jareth's comment. I have already given detailed references, down to the page numbers, in reliable encyclopedias and an esteemed 20 volume dictionary, the OED. To my knowledge the Rfc process lasts 48 hrs, so it should, be over by now.--AlainV 00:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I am in full agreement (with the need) for a compromise, but the proposed text can be enhanced; moreover, you still have not demonstrated your case and provided appropriate references to support your position. As well, please cite the authority for the RfC time limit you indicate (since many RfCs have been in place for days, even weeks) before a consensus results or is identified. Given the obscure nature of the RfC, perhaps if we agree to let it proceed for a week, perhaps two? Something longer than just two days.
As well, you can hardly act as an arbiter of what is proper given your refusal to cite references supporting your assertion that T is not a cyborg: you admitted the "impossibility" of doing this yourself. I challenge your attempts at imposing 'your' consensus/decision in the article.
If we are to arrive at a compromise/detente, we should vet any proposed changes to the note here before reverting the article ad infinitum.
Thus, I propose the following similar note, integrating notions from the current note and the proposed one by JR:
...or similar. I trust this addresses everything. Thoughts (by anyone)? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 00:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Were you thinking that would be the entirety of the note? I intended my suggestion to include most of the existing note (hence the "..."). Although I suppose the current note goes into a bit more detail than is necessary. Perhaps something like this:
I'm ambivalent about whether the "living organism/time travel" note is necessary or not; it adds support to the position that the Terminator is "alive" in some sense, which might be one way of interpreting the robot/cyborg distinction (although I've no idea how the timestream knows whether something being sent is alive or not... but that's another matter entirely). On the other hand, it's not strictly necessary to the explanation, especially if the quote is included. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Given that this has obviously gone back and forth quite a bit, I took the time to read through all of the comments on this page. One thing sticks out "The term cyborg <snip> is used to designate an organism which is a mixture of organic and mechanical (synthetic) parts." Given that definition and the fact that the article continues in that vein, I see no reason the disclaimer is even necessary. We are discussing a fictional character -- we can only go by the information given to us in the fictional works; reality may not apply. So while logicially, we may conclude from the on screen portrayal of the Terminator that it doesn't technically fit a particular definition of cyborg, we should allow that special effects/budget limitations may color our judgement. The movie discusses biomechanical workings and organic parts and describes the Terminator in a manner that coincides with the definition put forth in this article.

After spending far too long looking at official Terminator literature (movie script), it appears that the 800 series 100 and 101 models were the only ones described as cyborgs -- those before did not contain organic parts, those after went out on the fringe with cognizant liquid metal. So perhaps simply clarifying that we are referring to those specific models rather than cluttering the page with a disclaimer? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input; it is much appreciated! My intent in providing a possible, briefer alternative JR was to preclude the antagonist from (frankly) repeatedly and prematurely insinuating another edition (or removal, if prior attempts are any indication) that I think may be somewhat inaccurate and harks of his original position: that T is not at all a cyborg in any sense (for which a single reference has still not been provided). I also want to prevent such arguments from recurring. However, I like what you've done to the note, JR!
As well, Jareth, I contend (as you do) that at least the earlier Terminator models, being referred to as "cyborgs" in the films and abundantly online, are, in fact, cyborgs by some definitions, contrary to the antagonist's viewpoint and to even my dictionary. So, indeed, what's good for the goose may not be good for the gander.
It is also possible, as I implied beforehand with the nanotechnology inclusion and refs, that subsequent models may also be 'biosynthetic' hybrids ... on a cellular or molecular level: since only living matter could time travel, they must have had some essential biological components, if only superficial or in a mimetic ("polyalloy") capacity, to allow for this. However, I'm willing to waive this pending more information

Also came from RFC, I agree with Josiah Rowe, but I believe your definition of cybernetics could be improved. It could be said that a greater emphasis on the profound distinction between mechanics and electronics, industrial strength and more subtle strength sciences, could be made. Just a suggestion of course, but wouldn't Data have had his feelings hurt if he had had them? —BlackbeardSCBC (talk • BlackbeardSCBC) 04:48 -8GMT, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, BBSCBC! I've moved your statement here: as you will see above and below, this is a matter that JR et al. have addressed (specifically, the similar ambiguity between bionic humans and true 'organo-synthetic' hybrids) and should continue to when enhancing the article. And Data does have that pesky emotion chip, doesn't he (or it)? :) E Pluribus Anthony 00:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

All the same ...

[edit] RfC: conclusion

As a result of these discussions it is clear, then, that T can be included in the fictional listing, with or without cited proviso: a supporting note may — or may not — be required, with quotes that may or may not need to be elaborated upon. Correct? I guess we're aiming for ... a hybrid statement (pardon the pun). :) To ensure such arguments do not recur, I think the note to be included is as JR subsequently stated:

Agreed? Please indicate if this note, another, or none at all should be included. Let me know what you think; if there's no systemic objection, I'll incorporate this note shortly. Again, thanks so much! E Pluribus Anthony 06:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Per my earlier statement, I don't believe any note is required, but it might add value in its current form. Again, we're discussing a fictional character in a fictional universe who's technology may or may not correlate with our reality. The movie (and books) describe the Terminators (800 series and later) as cyborgs or biomechanical beings (in the case of those genetically engineered as a hybrid such as the T-1000). Since we have limited details about the process used to engineer the Terminators, we can either take the source's word, or discard it. The note might make sense for informational purposes. However, I sincerly hope that no one interested in cyborgs believes movies to be the appropriate place for serious research. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi ... agreed! While I am also loathe to include any note (since numerous examples may require them), it may be necessary given the lengthy debate up to this point; otherwise, a note is not necessary.
As mentioned long ago, it would be great if a discussion/section regarding the ambiguity of the definition were added to the article: see 'android' for an example. This would obviate the need for any similar notes, for movies or anything else. :) E Pluribus Anthony 16:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Great, and done! Until the "cyborg" article is enhanced as indicated above (like the "android" article), the note has been included. I believe this matter is now closed. Thank you all! E Pluribus Anthony 18:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I haven't agreed, and I'm not part of the consensus. I just dropped out of this debate becasue I got tired of arguing with people who refuse to understand the basis for scholarly references, as recognized in universities, colleges and just about any educational institution. The printed, authoritative evidence is that the word "cyborg" refers to an augmented human, not a machine with human parts added. Deviations can be interesting to note, but they should be explained as being deviations. --AlainV 03:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
AlainV: noted. Unfortunately, in defiance of Wp policies and procedures, you have not done any of the things you profess and have failed to prove your assertion. We also tire of users who fail to substantiate their arguments. The RfC has concluded, resulting in a consensus (and explanatory note) without you; that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Enjoy your rest. E Pluribus Anthony 03:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I have given exact printed sources as per Wikipedia standards. You haven't. The links you have given are not to any form of source, printed or digital, they just point to raw data. --AlainV 14:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Again: you have not cited anything (as requested multiple times) that states T is not a cyborg, and have indicated your supposed "impossibility" of doing this; ergo, you have not proven your case. I have provided links to movie text and to numerous sources that directly support both contentions, not just yours. The RfC is concluded, and a consensus has been achieved without you. Until you do cite your sources, in accordance with Wp policies and procedures, give it a rest. Hailing frequencies closed. E Pluribus Anthony 15:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC start

Hi guys, just read your RfC. Glad to see you are getting a bit settled. Having read some of the above, and having read quite a lot of SF (though having also forgotten most of it), I would have to agree that a cyborg ought to be an augmented human.(or at least naturally sentient being). However, this definition is not clear cut, and you are arguing over one example where the writers have somewhat branched out on their own. I think an article needs to explain this complication. The terminator has to be included because it is famous and self-proclaimed. But I agree as above that it should explain why it is really a bad example. ( my own view, I think, is that assuming the terminators only claim to human parts is its skin, then, no, it is not a cyborg. Either a robot, or an android, or a hybrid of the two. Sandpiper 02:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

p.s. i think the discussion about external parts counting is interesting, but arguing that people are all cyborgs because they wear clothes to augment their heat control would be getting daft. The additions must be a component part of the beast.

Hello! Thanks for your comments. As you can see from the debate and resulting consensus above, we've agreed to include an agreed-upon note for T, to explore the various definitions and ambiguities for "cyborg", and to include an appropriate section in the article. There is sufficient and widespread evidence to support both contentions (and not solely one or the other, as has been proposed) — i.e., a cyborg can be either (strictly) a bionic human or (loosely) a biological-synthetic hybrid (as T is). True: T is not an ideal example of a cyborg by some definitions, but it was the example singled out previously.
Moreover, I take it you are starting another RfC; if so, on what precisely? Similarly, I would tend to agree that mere clothing does not transform a being into a cyborg, but others may differ; do citations exist to support or refute either position?
Anyhow, I look forward to enhancing the article soon. Please feel free to weigh in to further expand on this and that. E Pluribus Anthony 03:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The City and Civilization as Cyborg

I believe I've heard of people talking about cities as if they were cyborgs.

People like William Gibson.

William Gibson credits "City Comes a Walkin" as Proto-Cyberpunk, which features the city of San Fransisco, in the person of "City."

I think there should be some treatment of this theme in the article: A cybernetic organism is not necessarily a single person.

LionKimbro

I'm going to continue working on this. I think we'll have a separate section on "the city as cyborg," or "Cyborg beyond the human form."

It can include the links to William Gibson's observation, reference to City Comes a Walkin', and point to Natural Born Cyborgs.

I believe a segregation of the two trends (human-form, and city-form cyborg) is warranted.

Hey; this gets even freakier (and perhaps more valid) if one embraces the Gaea hypothesis ... :) E Pluribus Anthony 19:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

"Today, the C-LEG system is used to replace human legs that fell off."

This seems kind of awkward, legs don't usually just fall off. At least not human legs. Might I suggest the following? "Some people who have lost a leg use the C-Leg system as a prosthetic replacement." -Gary

[edit] Gary-

Gary, I just edited that awkward phrase... It reads to the effect of what you suggested... I read the article myself and found myself feeling the same way.

Michael 14:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What would this be called?

The term cyborg, a portmanteau of cybernetic organism, is used to designate an organism which is a mixture of organic and mechanical (synthetic) parts. Generally, the aim is to add to or enhance the abilities of an organism by using technology. - From the cyborg article.

But what about the other way around? What would you call a computer that uses biology to enhance its function? For example, look at this news story of a group of 25,000 rat neurons hooked up to a flight simulator program. Imagine that a robotic drone or missile would use such a biological part (or even regular computers in addition to a synthetic CPU). Would you call these cyborgs or something else? Biocomputers maybe?

[edit] More on the Terminator's inclusion, subsequent to the RfC

Since the inclusion of the Terminator or Terminator characters flies in the face of printed definitions (in normal or multi-volume dictionaries or science fiction encyclopedias) of what constitutes a cyborg anybody who can go to a high school library in Brazil or anywhere else on the planet can verify the absurdity of keeping it in this article. --AlainV 04:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, your assertion three weeks later – in defiance of Wp consensus and evidence to the contrary – is irksome and tiresome. In fact: your continued insistance on this is absurd. Any attempts to remove this example will be reverted until a consensus supports it. Give it a rest. And that's that. E Pluribus Anthony 04:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Good Lord, is this still going on? I thought this was done and dusted. I'm loath to restart this debate, especially since there seemed to be a consensus (albeit, obviously, not a unanimous one). But I just had a look at the argument again, and had a thought. I don't know if this would be acceptable to other parties involved in this dispute, but it occurred to me that we might be able to resolve the difficulty by changing one word in the footnote:
(The real entry wouldn't need to be bolded — that's just for emphasis here.) Anthony, Alain, Jareth, anybody else: what do you think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I know: irksome, isn't it? I believe this is a closed matter and I'm tired of this. Regarding your suggestion: I'm neither here nor there with but or and (I prefer and) and I believe neither would satisfy the minority, but edit it if you wish. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 06:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope that you will all have noted that I have not touched the article for a long time. And I don't intend to touch it (except of course for parts which have nothing to do with the Terminator issue, and where I have added material before without raising any fuss) in the future. But the point is that the inclusion of the Terminator in the examples (an in the other article-list of cyborgs), or the existence of a definition which leaves ample room for him flies in the facts in the printed sources (encyclopaedias, dictionaries) out there. And recent ones I might add. So, the status quo comes from a consensus but it is a consensus based on personal points of view arrived at by original research. This goes against everything Wikipedia says it is or does when it presents itself to the general public. As long as the proponents (and they are many, in the open source community and outside it) of Wikipedia "advertise" these positions you will have people coming in to get more info on cyborgs after having seen a short dictionary definition. And they will say "wait a minute, that Wikipedia definition includes a robot, and that's not what my dictionary says". And some of them will check a bigger dictionary, and again they will see a definition of cyborg which excludes the Terminator or other robots with organic elements added. And of course, since Wikipedia is supposed to be participatory and completely open, and based on reputable sources like good dictionaries, they will go and change it, like Igordebraga just did. And this is going to repeat itself each time there is a public "buzz" around the word cyborg, like the recent announcement that James Cameron has started casting calls for a new movie based on a Japanese cyborg story. --AlainV 04:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I will only respond this once (unless there's significant reason otherwise): others have, and will, beg to differ with this POV. With all your verbosity, you still have not provided one reference directly indicating that T is not a cyborg. A consensus here disagrees with you: that's the point, and that's all that Wp requires. This matter is closed.
Moreover, I find your repeated insistence for this position (valid or not) and disrespect for consensus highly distasteful, particularly from a Wp administrator. Spend more time editing and administrating, and less time ranting. And that's it. E Pluribus Anthony 05:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

But I have provided references that the Terminator is not a cyborg, both by the accepted definition of the word "references" in scholarly circles (and have put those books, with the exact page numbers at the bottom of the article) and by your definition of the term: Google hits. And I'll give you more again since you ask. I have just done a Google search for the terms Terminator and robot, with the word cyborg excluded (Terminator AND robot NOT cyborg, in boolean terms) and I have had 2,270,000 results. This means that there are quite a lot of pages out there on the Web saying that the Terminator is a robot and not mentioning at all the word cyborg. --AlainV 06:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This is all I'll say: we disagree and you are in a minority. Your rationale is flawed and dubious: you stated earlier the "impossibility" of citing such examples. Moreover, your most recent search proves that references exist that he is one or the other (as the consensus note in the article indicates), not that T is just one (as you assert). Stop trying to obfuscate your position with POV assertions and misrepresentations. A Wp consensus has been IDd, and a decision arrived at, in spite of your disruptions and flip-flopping. Until you can prove your case – and haven't yet – and a Wp consensus supports it, give it a rest. I will not respond further to your disruptions unless there's ample reason to do so. This matter is closed. E Pluribus Anthony 06:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Anthony, I don't see that Alain is really disrupting Wikipedia to make a point at this stage. He's not editing the article page, he's just stating his disagreement with its content (again). I'm not sure that it's necessary, since I think everybody who's interested already knows his position, but I also think that at this stage the discussion on the talk page seems to amount to the two of you trying to get the last word. Anthony is correct that the RfC is concluded, and ended with a fairly clear consensus to include the Terminator. However, Alain withdrew from participation in the discussion before that conclusion was reached, and clearly feels that the article is in error. We all have a choice here of several possible courses:

  • We can choose to "let it go", leaving the article as is and with everyone's opinions about the issue clearly stated on the talk page.
  • We can continue to bicker, possibly escalating the argument and bringing in other adminstrators to apply sanctions to one or both parties.
  • We can attempt once again to find common ground. This may seem to go against the Wikipedia principle of "respect for process", insofar as the RfC had a clear result which Alain has not accepted. However, it would also respect the (more important, IMO) Wikipedia principle of collaborative editing and consensus-building. It probably won't be easy, and it probably will be frustrating (all the more since this is an ongoing debate). But I can see a possible way forward if both parties agree. Strictly speaking, I'm not a completely neutral party, since my vote is recorded above, but if the two of you are interested I'm willing to try to work with you both to find an amicable solution. However, if either of you feel that it's more important to continue to argue or to take the matter to Wikipedia authorities, then I'll just step back and let whatever happens, happen.

I should also add that the discussion isn't limited to the three of us — anyone who's interested can and should join in. But the same choices apply to other parties — you can ignore (wu wei), you can confront, or you can build. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, JR. I disagree about disruption: repeated comments asserting a particular POV, that fly in the face of a consensus, is disruptive. I or anyone can choose to ignore such statements (even worse for the proponent); however, since they are posted on a Wp talk page that (by its mere design) anyone can comment on, I feel compelled to respectfully (grudgingly) reply to them when they may be erroneous ... and others have and should too.
That being said, my main choice is to "let it go" (and AV should, too): we have already initiated, collaborated, and concluded an RfC (extended over a period). AV had the chance and he squandered it: you will recall that AV seemed content to conclude the RfC at one point when it apparently satisfied his needs, only to reneg when additional clarification was garnered that didn't satisfy him. He then withdrew (due to being "tired" of argument) and has since ramped up again. I find such flip-flopping irksome and counterproductive, and you expressed surprise yourself about this reopening. There's no reason to believe that a subsequent RfC would be different.
Moreover, unless significant cause exists to re-open this issue, and I do not believe this to be the case currently (e.g., no new information), we should not; otherwise, tit-for-tat comments and edits would be unending. (I will participate in an RfC, however, if it's mounted through a consensus.) And I thereby decline the 'bickering' option unequivocally: all of the above indicates my position (in some places, more than once), and I will hereafter withdraw and not reply to AV regarding this, but I will do so with others if need be and requested. And yes: other comments are encouraged. Please let me know if you've any questions. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 18:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that another RfC wouldn't be productive. My "build" proposal is for working informally and respectfully on this page. ("Bicker" was probably an unnecessarily pointed word for me to choose: "confront" is more neutral.) Alain? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey: a spade is a spade regarding 'bickering,' though 'confront' is more appropriate and diplomatic. As the verbose discourse above demonstrates, I've done enough of that. And I'm all for building ... but not a house of cards.  :) E Pluribus Anthony 19:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've thought this over for more than 24 hours and gone to a university library to read some research texts on SF to get myself in a more general frame of mind, and I still cannot understand the basis, the logic for having here a definition which lets robots and androids in, when decent reference works and scholarly publications don't. I think the next step would be to go to Wikipedia:Mediation. By the way, I've never withdrawn from the discussion, I've just taken time to reflect, to ponder on the wisdom of things as the guidelines for editing Wikipedia suggest. --AlainV 05:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I will respond to summarise and indicate course of action only. From the get-go, you've maintained a position and initiated a discussion that you have not wholly substantiated. I provided evidence contradicting your POV and – frustrated by your deletions and behaviour – I initiated an RfC (advertised in numerous spots in Wp) regarding the issue. Others participated. When formulating the note added and pondering the issue, you grew "tired" when it didn't suit you and stopped participating in the RfC at the time; nonetheless, a consensus was arrived at without you. Your drop-in/drop-out attitude throughout reinforces that, and (weeks later) you alone still disagree.
I maintain that significant reason does not exist to ponder the issue further and other options remain. As previously discussed, we should make additional edits to the article to reflect the ambiguity of the definition or usage, like a section as in android (and I am as guilty of not doing that as anyone). Moreover, no significant information has been presented since, including specific references as previously – and repeatedly – requested . . . something which you cited as an "impossibility". Thus, unless additional efforts prove fruitless (as per Wp guidelines) and a consensus supports mediation therein, I will not initiate or participate in one. E Pluribus Anthony 05:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terminator Issue

I think that this is an issue that needs to be resolved, yet it seems that it won't be for a while. Go over to android, and you come across the same debate, and it needs to be resolved there as well. The main problem is one of interpretation, and both the android Terminator advocates, and the cyborg terminator advocates both have valid points of view, but the issue needs to be adressed with other "robots" as well, such as the main character of bi-centennial man, data, and C3PO. Data sticks out in my mind, as apparently he was originally meant to be organic, and make no mistake, the issue at hand is of "organicness". Aside from that he strikes me as the penultimate template for an android, as externally, he resembles a person, and he has a capacity for learning, intelligence, ethics, and a limited capacity (before the movies anyway) for emotion. He is treated as an equal, yet does not forget his role on the ship, and he is more advanced than a human in some ways (strength, information processing, etc). Personally, these things seem more important than the organic nature of him or any other "robot". Anyway, this is just my personal opinion.

Ona different note, the bulk of this page needs to be transferred to some other page or space, and a new talk page created, citing the most relevant points. First and foremost the Terminator issue.

Dessydes

It's even more complicated. Blade runner has introduced the term "replicant" to describe what Karel Capek would have called a robot (human like beings made from human parts grown in vats or tubes and then assembled in a factory) and what later science fiction authors of the 50s and 60s came to call androids, reserving the name robot for mechanical men. Worse still, Star Wars as introduced the term "droids" to describe both mechanical men (which some would call androids) and robots who do not have human shape like R2D2. All of these creations are artificial intelligences, that is AIs like HAL in 2001. Or are they? In addition there is the question of the Art of the author in creating a word, a character, or a universe. Fans may want all the details filled in, but this kills Art off completely in the eyes of many authors (some film directors included) who leave the nature of things imprecise and vague, on purpose. When considering terms literary warrant, that is usage in textual science fiction has to be considered as well as the science fiction in sequential art like movies, TV series, comics. Right now, the inclusion of the Terminator as a cyborg only takes one type of warrant in one particular movie into account. --AlainV 23:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The definition of "cyborg" needs to be examined

As I understand it, cyborg is a contraction of "cybernetic organism" and refers to machine additions to a biological organism that make, for lack of a better term, decisions. This is due to the greek origin of "cyber" which involves decision making. I would cite the book "Rebuilt" (an autobiographical documentary about a man who recieved a cochlear implant) as the source of this information which I will try to cite more completely in a later post. This definition means that only implants that make decesions, like cochliar implants and to the most limited extent pacemakers, can create a cyborg. Hence, getting a replacement hip does not make one a cyborg, and terminator is definately not a cyborg because it is in truth a machine with skin thrown over it. It is my opinion that this article plays a little fast and loose with the definition of cyborg, though I acknowledge that pertinent perspectives, such as that simple interface with a machine constitutes a form of cyborghood, should be talked about. I will try to do more reasearch to improve this article, but I would consensus and discusion on what should be done.

What you say is quite true, but there has to be some sort of consensus on the Terminator issue. Dessydes


My vote personally is that terminator is an android (I admit I am not familiar with this term, but I am positive it is not a cyborg). I think that we should define android as being a human resembling machine, with the possible inclusion of organic parts, and cyborgs as, in the sources I have read, organisms with a decision making machine addition. It is also important to mention that it need not be an enhancement, as current technology does not work as well as the original organ. There are printed references to cyborg qualifying the definition I described and once I find my copy of “Rebuilt” I will post what it says on the subject.
Just a thought, if putting skin on a machine makes it a cyborg, does that make a chair with bacteria on it a cyborg? By point in this argument is that with out a relatively strict definition, words lose their meaning.
Also, should I post a quote from “Rebuilt” verbatim (cited of course), or should I summarize it for fear of copy right infringement? I don’t think I have to paraphrase it because this is an academic discussion, not plagiarism, but I would appreciate knowing what standard practice is. Oniamien
I'm not going to state my personal view on whether he is a cyborg or android. To me it's really a matter of perspective. However, I like the points that you bring up, they are very valid. Dessydes
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/y/b/Talk%7ECyborg_Archive_1_73dd.html"