Archived Discussion Main / Cyborg

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Working Title: Cybernetics: From YKTTW

Some Sort Of Troper: After some forum discussion, it's agreed that this page is not really meant to be the page for Hollywood Style cyborgs or anything. It was meant to be just about Cyborgs in general so it'll get this name and some as yet unascertained page will fill a Hollywood Cyborg shaped hole.

Sunder The Gold: Yeah, I'm calling BS as well. Changing it now.

Irony...in Real Life by the time mankind will be able to attach complicated mechanical parts into humans without fear of rejection, we'll probably have come up with something that does the job more effectively.

joeyjojo:This is pure speculation. we shouldn’t use a yet-to-be-invented technology to discredit another yet-to-be-invention technology. you might as well being saying that flying cars will be overshadowed by teleportation. I’m taking it out.

Dok Enkephalin: "Technically, even people with glasses could be considered cyborgs; cybernetics deals with all mechanical/electronic enhancements, from the big to the small." Uh, no. To be considered cybernetics, there has to be some control-feedback mechanism. The wearer receives the data through the lenses, but it's functioning isn't controlled by the user. A hearing aid amplifies input, and also has a volume control the wearer can manipulate with a finger. Pacemakers are also regulated by the heart that they regulate, so are also cybernetic. Glasses != cybernetics, though if they had telescoping lenses they might apply.

Dok Enkephalin: "In the original definition of "cybernetics", it was the study of constructing machines by mimicking real organisms, i.e. building insect robots that process sensory and motion information like insects do. Thus, "cybernetic organism" can refer to such a pure machine." Although the original definition simply means the study of control-feedback systems in general, the sci-fi Memetic Mutation has altered the connotations to mean technologically augmented lifeform, while the other end of the biological/mechanical scale represents the definition of a droid, or android when referring to humanoids. A machine even with biological components would still be a droid or robot, since that biology is usually synthetically grown or artificially grafted. Under this definition, even a clone may be considered a robot, since it's artificially created, and again a clone with cybernetic enhancements would still be a robot.

• Robocop and Steve Austin == cyborg - Terminator and Roy Beatty == android.
  • Dok Enkephalin: This leaves the results of necromancy and technological reanimation in an extremely confused area on the scale. If you built a machine out of post-mortem flesh, is it any less a construct? How is that any different from making an undead? How is Frankenstein different from vodoo magic or Umbrella's viruses? It's one thing if the subject was brought back from clinical death after however long a term medical technology could restore them to the same living state they'd been in since being born, and another if they simply move the parts around, no matter how much of their intelligence (and what could pass for a soul) has been retained.
    • Known Unknown: Well, The Monster is a golem more than an android/cyborg: we was made wholly from pieced together parts, whereas a Cyborg is generally either someone who was augmented or had parts replaced with machinery. Cyborgs built from scratch with both mechanical and organic parts aren't exactly considered the same as regular cyborgs (for example, Coldstone fits here mainly because he keeps his original... personalities...). A variant, for example, is Cell, who was made entirely of cells from scratch, but is considered an android rather than a cyborg because he's less of a person with mechanical traits and more of a biological machine.
    • Dok Enkephalin: We're all biological machines, technically, and that's something we would have in common with any cyborg or clone or android made of biological components. An artificially created lifeform is set apart by it's synthetic nature, no matter what intelligence or personality it has (since science doesn't yet have any way to detect a soul,) and in that respect a clone would be no different from any robot.
    • Known Unknown: I'm confused as to your point... are you saying there's no difference between a clone, a cyborg, a biological robot? That depends on your definition, which we apparently differ in, and also depends on how those beings are portrayed. Technically, we are biological machines; but not in the same way a being made of simple meat with a computer-algorithm for a brain would be. Cell, for example: is considered an android because of his makeup: he is completely synthetic; while from an original base, he is made from modifying your own custom made cells, mass producing them, and then giving them computer orders, rather than just reproducing a base, which a clone would be. A clone is often not considered the same as a robot, or, at least, they aren't when they have their own identities, because they are full humans and not constructs, whereas a construct with a personality would still be considered a golem (The Monster) or a machine (Cell). This also tends to unfortunately lead to some What Measure Is a Non-Human?.

Thunderclaw: "If your generic Mad Scientist has a specialty in robotics, or even dabbles in it, you should expect this trope to come up relatively soon, despite the two being pretty different." I'm no expert, but it seems to me that the only real difference would be that cybernetics require a relatively advanced understanding of the human body - to avoid infections, and properly interface the two. Functionally, there's no difference between a robotic arm and a cybernetic arm - the signals and feedback is coming from/going to a different place, is all. Is there something I'm missing here, or should I just take it out?