Talk:Cyborg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Rush Limbaugh

Much as I enjoy making fun of--Lindblad (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC) him, I avoid the temptation to vandalize Wiki articles. Is this a joke or what?

As for the general question of "who qualifies as a cyborg?" that's a toughie. I would define a cyborg as anyone who has a major organ replaced with a microprocessor-controlled device OR has new machinery grafted onto him; I am also biased towards thinking a "proper" cyborg would not be suffering any limitations due to the device. A pirate with a peg leg isn't a cyborg, he's just an amputee with a cheap prosthetic. The Iraq war amputees with the titanium legs, they're still amputees, I wouldn't quite call them cyborgs. The examples linked in the article with the thought-controlled limbs, that's a "proper" cyborg. To refer to scifi examples, someone like a Geordi from Star Trek, he's got cybernetic eyes. Picard has an artificial heart, thus making him technically a cyborg. The Six Million Dollar man, cyborg. Ash from Evil Dead, he's just replaced a hand with a chainsaw, not a cyborg. Gmuir 15:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminator

Glad the Terminator issue was resolved, but (and I hate to start up this debate again) in Terminator 2 Judgement Day, the T-800 refers to the T-1000 (according to [1], which coincidentally is cited in the article) as a "mimetic polyalloy". (I remember him saying "animetal polyalloy, but perhaps i misheard). At any rate, there is an error in the article. Dessydes 18:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Cyborg film examples

Would it be appropriate to add some examples of cyborgs in film and Television?

There's already a link to cyborgs in fiction. Dessydes 13:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silly

This whole article is silly because it tries to ridiculise the concept of cyborgs. Are people with pacemakers, neural implants or insulin pumps cyborgs? YES But stating that a notepad or a cellphone makes you a cyborg is ridiculous as those are not part of one's body.

Read some works by Alexander Chislenko, or ancillary works in cultural evolution, anthropology, and philosophy of technology (e.g. James Burke). Although popular culture has largely depicted cyborgs as humans with synthetic materials interwoven into their flesh, the academic argument of cyborgization has centered on how technology has modified humans in reciprocity for humans modifying their technology -- that all technology are mere extensions of the human body. This perspective is at least as old as John Locke's treatise on labor and private property. 71.162.255.58 18:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly the article is quite well written. It is trying to point out that the concept of what it is depends on your personal perspective. Dessydes 13:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, isn't that NNPOV? -- Ned Scott 13:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral does not equate to Objective. As has been emphasized lately in Wikipedian culture (zealotously in too many cases, IMHO), Wikipedia seeks verification not truth. Sometimes people play this card just to be change-prohobitive, such as not being able to write that water is wet unless you can cite a reputable source which has expressed this. Too much tacit knowledge is lost because some people in the community take the verification requirement to an unproductive extreme. However, in this article, it seems to me that we have room to summarize the academic categorizations of cyborgs (further extended in Cyborg theory) and room for speculative and fictional exemplars (detailed excrutiatingly in Cyborgs in fiction). The former seeks to create a foundation for cyborgization as a field of study (hence the Navigation Template) whereas the latter explores the imagination of what possibilities cyborgization holds for the future of humanity. Suryadas 00:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough but you must carefully watch any adding so that it is not original research or wikipedia will become a breeding ground for every half-baked theory thought up while on the can. (BTW if anyone does get a brilliant idea while on the can that's no reason to disregard it but wikipedia is NOT the place to first publish it)--Energman 13:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that the concept of the cyborg has evolved since the term was coined. Once a euphemism for the hybridisation of 'man and machine' is has now evolved to also consider (amongst much more besides and in between) the networks that go into allowing us do what we do on a daily basis: even something as simple as jotting down notes on a pad with a pencil. Extending our bodily network outwards to using that pencil enables us to do something we would otherwise be unable to do...and further, extending those networks out again and again, were it not for those who went into making those pencils, we wouldn't be able to even buy them in the first place. And so the argument continues. Simply categorizing things/bodies as 'man/machine' cyborgs is not always accepted, though by virtue of saying that it is a mixture of 'nature and culture' it is often critiqued as reinforcing the binary oppositions the cyborg hoped to eliminate. Certainly in academia, it is not just used as a theoretical tool but as an ontological perspective too. (HM) 15:26, 19 October 2006.

This is simply ridiculous there is very little in this article on the actual concept of a conventional cyborg. Pen and paper make people cyborg? That is far from the conventional concept. There is VERY little on stuff like pacemakers, robotic limbs, electronic brain interfaces, etc. I came to this article because I am currently watching a show on the discovery channel about cyborgs and its talking about some incredible stuff, very little of which is present in this article.Eno-Etile 01:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added an "expert needed" tag to this article to help make it less about fiction and more about the actual science involved. I will try to clean it up a little in the future, but I'm no expert myself. Robotman1974 11:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Just curious did anyone see the Discovery Channel program I was referring to? It was shown recently (the date of my last post on this page), and was about cyborgs.Eno-Etile 08:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rejected addition

I am not an expert on the technical aspects of cybernetics but I studied the social implications of cyborgs at Harvard so I tried to add something about the cultural meaning of cyborgs in fiction. Do you think that such a discussion improves the article or is it too esoteric? I agree that an engineer currently working on cyborg technology is needed to ground this in reality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiWarrior1 (talk • contribs) on 05:50, January 11, 2007 (UTC); Please sign your posts!

Well, a GIPU has reverted your edit as "retarded nonsense!" I don't agree with the description, but it did seem out of place from my review. Also, please sign your comments. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darth Vader != Omar cyborg

Leaving aside the rather dubious definition of "Omar cyborg" I must point out that Darth Vader is NOT such a cyborg. He has numerous implants throughout his body and on top of those he wears his black armor. I'm changing the caption under the picture. If anyone wants to change it back first give arguments here --Energman 13:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error, does not compute ...

Regarding the following in the Cyborg atricle ...

"Fictional cyborgs may be represented as visibly mechanical (e.g. the Borg in the Star Trek franchise or the Cylons from the 1978 TV series, Battlestar Galactica); or as almost indistinguishable from humans (e.g. the Cylons from the re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica)."

In both the new and old versions of Battlestar Galactica, the Cylons are NOT cyborgs. The Cylons of the older series were completely hardware machines and were not reported to have any organic/flashy parts at all. The Cylons from the new series visually appear to have flesh-like parts (as seen when Starbuck is inside a Raider trying to get it to fly so she can get back to the fleet), however it is never stated that these are organic/living in nature. TKR101010 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC) TKR101010 050407

I think the comment is on the human-form Cylons. They are organic (at least partly), and can reproduce with humans. Still, I agree that they aren't cyborgs. They would be better classified as organically-based androids (some might say "biodroids"). 170.163.100.203 (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely forgot about the androids from BSG. I just got done writing a response as to whether Master Chief is a cyborg and they would have been a good example of how blurry the line gets. If an android is so closely modeled on a human being down to having organic/synthetic parts that can't be easily distinguished from the "real" thing, where is the line between being android, robot, or cyborg? There should be more terms that are specific to the "phase" or level of synthetic component. Cyborg is just too general. -- KeeperOTD (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jennica?

I saw some weird section about some cyborg girl who goes to school. This obviously looks either like vandalism, or this was written by a 9-year old. If this so-called "Jennica" person is real (which i highly doubt), please rewrite that section to make it sound somewhat mature! PS: I deleted it to save this article any further embarassment.Abcw12 (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] real life examples

With modern technologies, systems are in place that are being used for the advancement of people or for the equalization of those that have a disadvantage. I think that real life examples should be included in this article. For example a friend of mine has a small machine that has a permanent puncture of his skin, which helps him keeps stable with his diabetes, and he considers himself (jokingly) a cyborg. I'm also aware of machines that maximize the amount of light entering nearly blind people's eyes. No big deal, just a consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danthemango (talk • contribs) 08:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Androids, not Cyborgs in Bladerunner

I believe it is incorrect to refer to the replicants in BR as cyborgs. They are not a synthesis of human and machine. 129.21.198.113 (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medic's exoskeleton?

Having just read the article for the first time, I couldn't help but wonder at the last paragraph in section 5.2(Military), which reads "...allowing hypothetically for soldiers to haul large amounts of medical supplies and carry injured soldiers to safety"... are we really naïve enough to believe that, when the military finally complete this exoskeleton for their soldiers, they will limit the use of it in such a fashion that only medics are allowed to employ it to carry medical supplies into battle and wounded comrades out of it? Is it really inconceivable that other soldiers might use the extra strength to carry an extra few clips of ammo - or larger weaponry? Being a trained, though now retired, medic myself, I will of course welcome this unusual show of philanthropy from the military... But I somehow doubt it.--Lindblad (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)