Talk:Android (robot)/Archive 1

Untitled
Androids in Fiction---Uh...aside from the Robot NOVELS (Robots of Dawn, ect.)by Asimov, the robots themselves are virtually ALL (in the short stories)clearly identifiable as such, they are metal and clearly tools like any other. Therefore it is not fair to say that most Asimov robots are indistinguishable from humans.

-Mr. Tachyon

I know [gynoid] is a fairly lengthy article, but it seems logical that it should be a subcategory of the [android] article, as though, technically, android refers to male, it is commonly used as a gender neutral term and the Greek root may have been used as such. The current setup seems strange, like having one page for female dogs and another for males.... Comments? Chris Shanks 09:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Larry removed a reference to a song entitled "Android" from here, saying something to the effect that a song didn't really deserve its own page unless it was a culturally significant one. I disagree. Every human endeavor no matter how insignificant deserves a page here, and every possible sense of every word should be listed in a disambiguating page. Indeed, I think s Wikipedia grows, pages with one-word titles should all become dictionary-like descriptions of the word and its various senses, with links to more specific pages on each. One possible argument I might agree with is that one-word titles aren't really "senses" of the word, and will be found by a search on the word anyway, so it might not be neccesary to link from "Android" to "Android (Radiohead song)". --Lee Daniel Crocker
 * Every human endeavor no matter how insignificant deserves a page here, and every possible sense of every word should be listed in a disambiguating page.
 * Every human endeavor no matter how insignificant deserves a page here, and every possible sense of every word should be listed in a disambiguating page.


 * If I agreed with that, then obviously I would agree with you, but as I don't, I don't. Simply: why?  Also, "disambiguating pages" (pointer pages) are often going to be annoying.  When I go to Paris, I don't want to have to click again to see the article that I obviously expect to see, i.e., the one about Paris, France.  If this makes it harder to find Paris, Texas (because I have to click through to reach that article), so much the worse for Paris, Texas.  Anyway, we'll make copious use of parentheses, as in "Paris (France)" when they're available, and then we can make Paris a pointer page as Lee suggests.  Even when we do have parentheses, though, I'm quite sure that there will still be many topics that, though the word describing them is ambiguous like almost all words, really don't need their own parentheses pages. --LMS
 * An encyclopedia is, by definition, encyclopedic, that is to say, comprehensive. That means every Paris that exists should be included, not just the one you happen to be looking for.  Others may not be looking for the one you are looking for.  Do you have a greater right to convenience than they?  Is it not enough that information is made easy to find by placing it in one location, that a community has risen to ensure that the format of that information is accurate and readily consumable; you also require that it be tailored to your personal and specific needs?  And what gives you the right to be treated this way at the expense of every other user on the Internet?  You find disambiguation pages annoying?  Sorry, perhaps you have a better way — short of judging which one Paris is worthy of inclusion at the expense of all others — of determining which of the several possible meanings a user is seeking? Canonblack 22:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia is, by definition, encyclopedic, that is to say, comprehensive. That means every Paris that exists should be included, not just the one you happen to be looking for.  Others may not be looking for the one you are looking for.  Do you have a greater right to convenience than they?  Is it not enough that information is made easy to find by placing it in one location, that a community has risen to ensure that the format of that information is accurate and readily consumable; you also require that it be tailored to your personal and specific needs?  And what gives you the right to be treated this way at the expense of every other user on the Internet?  You find disambiguation pages annoying?  Sorry, perhaps you have a better way — short of judging which one Paris is worthy of inclusion at the expense of all others — of determining which of the several possible meanings a user is seeking? Canonblack 22:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The previous definition of android in this article as a human/mechanical combination was wrong, according to the OED, which says it's "an automaton resembling a human being". I fixed the definition, and then I concluded that as a result of the erroneous definition, the remainder of the article must have been referring to cyborgs, not to androids. Therefore I moved the body of this article to cyborgs in fiction. After that, I discovered that the movie examples really were about androids in the correct sense (humanoid robots), so I moved them back. I'm sorry for messing about with the article, but it's OK now. -- Heron

Is it necesary to list every Aliens and Star Trek movie, rather than just "alien trilogy" "star trek series"? vroman 07:47 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * It's not the entire Star Trek series, just the ones with Data in it. And there's one episode about the engineer B'Elanna Torres finding 2 warring android species in Star Trek: Voyager, but that's just one episode, other than that, it's basically just Data. About 5 episodes with his brother and 1 with his mother, all created by Dr. Noonien Soong, that appeared on ST. --Menchi 08:22 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I was under the impression the replicants in blade runner were genetically engineered, entirely organic beings, not androids. Vroman


 * They may be made entirely out of organic parts, but they're still made out of parts. They're man-made devices, not naturally-generated beings. (Anyway, if they're not "androids", what are they?) &mdash;Paul A 02:40, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * that is a good question as to what they should be called, since it seems to me that "android" connotates as mechanical, which they arent. maybe "Replicant" really should enter the lexicon for this type of being. Vroman 10:42, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In fact, poking around the internet, it would appear that if anything "android" connotes organic, as opposed words like "robot" that imply mechanical. I even found a dictionary definition specifying "created from biological materials". &mdash;Paul A 02:20, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Does it connote "mechanical", though? I can think of other, admittedly less famous, biological androids in fiction; and the word itself simply means 'resembles a man'.


 * Even Karel Capek's robots in R.U.R. were organic. Ausir 22:56, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Arthur C. Clarke uses the term "biots" for biological robots in Rendezvous with Rama. I like the term. Android -for me- just carries the meaning of "immitating the appearance of living beings". Doesn't matter what's under the skin. -- Nils, Apr 18th, 2004.

Well-known robots - What, Data better known than C-3PO or the Terminator? I beg to differ! -- Nils, Apr 18th, 2004.


 * C3PO is a humanoid robot, but not an android. The Terminator is a cyborg. Ausir 10:22, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The current broad definition given here ("an artificially created being that resembles a human being") certainly describes C-3PO, which/who is more popular than Data. A-giau 12:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * More popular than Data? Them's fightin words!!! ;-)
 * The proplem that I addressed below is that science fiction authors have choosen whatever words they prefer to describe whatever "beings" they wanted to write about. In that sense, "android" doesn't have a "strict" definition. I tried to broaden the definition to be as inclusive of how the word has been used as possible. If Mr. George Lucas (or if a majority of Star Wars fans) want to call C-3PO an android, I won't dispute it. :)
 * func(talk) 14:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mechanical vs. Organic
In fact, quite a few authors have choosen to use android to imply an artificial organic being, (at least partly). Data, in fact, seems to have been originally written as more organic than mechanical, as evidenced by the early episode in which he became drunk. Later, I think the writers decided that the special effects for Data would be cooler if he was basically a machine with lots of pretty flashing lights inside. ;-)

I can't remember off hand, but wasn't the artificial guy (Ash?) in the movie Alien called an android?

Someone above mentioned the Replicants in the movie "Blade Runner." In fact, the movie was based on a novel written by Philip K. Dick called "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep".

The movie A.I. was based on a short story called "Supertoys Last All Summer Long," written by Brian Aldiss. As I recall, the movie choose to call them something like "mechinoids" (?), but in the original story, the central character David is discribed as an android, by which he seemed to mean an artificial, organic creation.

Just commenting. AdmN 04:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Speculation
I removed this paragraph from the article:


 * Androids might be used for entertainment and conversation rather than repetitive work, because robots and machines are better suited for work. Androids may replace animatronic characters in films and theme parks. Androids in science fiction are usually smarter, stronger, and more handsome than living people. Scientists are developing faster and smaller computer chips that will one day equal and exceed the memory capacity and speed of the human brain. Hair-thin metal muscle wires now exist that can lift thousands of times their own weight. Artificial Cyberskin is soft and flexible like human skin. These technologies will be used in the real-life androids of the future.

There may be a place for this information, but it currently reads like someone's POV, ie: this is someone speculating on their own theories, rather than making an encyclopedic contribution. Also, CyberSkin turns out to be a trade-marked word, used by an adult toy manufacturer. I've rewritten the Cyberskin article to reflect this fact. func(talk) 16:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Android article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience. Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add to this page. &mdash; LinkBot 09:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Possible Redefinition of Terms
Well, this idea of mine is quite POV and I thought it should be considered at least on the talk page, and maybe it might spark more worthy edits.

I'm under the impression that many robot terms are used loosely...particularly with "cyborg" referring to the Terminator robot. I thought that a cyborg was a modification of a living organism that incorporates artificial parts (even then this is almost too broad a definition, which could apply to patients with prosthetics, etc...). What gets me on the Terminator is that it's not a modified version of a living being...its a robot (and oftentimes it exists without the skin, in the role of a foot soldier) that has skin grown specifically to fit it and make it appear as a human being. That's how it infiltrated rebel hideouts. So what I think we're looking at here is an android, a robot designed with the purpose of appearing as a living organism. I think the original assertion of it as a cyborg might have been a loose interpretation of the combination of biological and mechanical parts...I'm sure we're all very clear on the fact that not all androids are mechanical (take the Replicants, for instance). I also recall that Ash and Bishop (the androids appearing the Alien series) had very organic-looking insides, which might indicate the use of biological material.

I feel that the original design of these automatons should be taken into account. At it's most basic form, an android is a robot, because it was designed like a robot to fit certain specifications (it could have been built, or biologically grown, but either way it was still constructed to fit a plan). A cyborg, no matter how modified it may be, was originally a biological organism before modification, and it's original design was changed rather than begun from scratch. Assuming that an android is a pre-designed entity and that a cyborg is a modified entity, regardless of the porportions of material used, might provide a slightly more adaptive definition.

However, it'd also have to clear up exceptions...

-Genetic engineering/cloning: I am unsure of how to overcome this particular limitation. I'm referring to organisms that are the result of genetic experimentation. One might see entire new species. I would suggest restricting an android label also by purpose, which should be mimicry of an existing organism, ruling out these products. However, this leaves another issue...clones then might be referred to as a form of android. I am unsure how to work with this definition, but any input might be helpful.

I just hope this input might be of some, if any, use.

WHY NOT DEFINE AN ANDROID IN PART BY EXACTLY WHAT AN ANDROID DOES or IS EXPECTED TO DO?

It seems that we use definitional words to mislead our minds for most words are visions of the collective whole of the sum of the parts. Does an android: obey its master; peform tasks suitable to its design; have a useful life; have emotion; conform to rules and regulations of design;  adhere to android social and environmental expectations; have interchangeable parts (maybe some); have flaws; and, consistent and smililar trains of analysis as to acts, practices and a course of conduct. Is an Android subject to discipline? Can an android have religion or manifestations of behavorial beliefs demonstrated by the androids actions and conduct? Can an android be instructed by its master to destroy another android? Can an android have conscience? All the definitions seek to accept a visual image but the whole is equal to the sum of its parts. Is the andriod capable of independent thought resulting in pre-programed guidance and delivery of the master's wishes?

Definitions
I was under the impression that the meaning of the term android is a robot that has conscious awareness, the term cyborg refers to a human with robot parts, and the term robot is a general term to refer to all classes of artificial beings.

All types of artificial beings can be "Androids"?
In the Bio-Androids page it says its been suggested it be merged with the Android page.

Humonoid constructs seem to be fairly common but four primary forms exist.

A purely mechanical version like most androids in sci-fi.

A combination of organic and mechanical parts simular to a cyborg but was never a human or other animal. Such as the T-100 Terminator or Armitage.

A purely organic being that was built not grown like Melfina from Outlaw Star, which can have some inhuman powers.

and the nano-blob version (which in its self is controversal to be called an Android) While some like this have a primarily human form like the T-1000 Terminator, Asuran & Human form Replicators from Star Gate and Star Gate Atlantis, others like Nanoids on Eureka would mimic other living beings like a dog, and most of the time when these Nano-blobs are used they appear as well a "blob". Or Amoebic like being.

If there are many of one particular type why not let them have their own page to make it easier for people searching the site to find exactly what they are looking for with out wadeing through information about simular things.

For example not giving each type its own specific page aside from the main Android article would be like having the only mentions of various sci-fi aliens on the page for that specific movie or show. Which in order to have the amount of information being sought would cause those pages to be massive.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Android (robot). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100205165831/http://www.fancast.com:80/tv/Total-Recall-2070/10604/full-episodes to http://www.fancast.com/tv/Total-Recall-2070/10604/full-episodes
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110731023732/http://www.an-droidx.com:80/ to http://www.an-droidx.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)