Talk:Cyborg/Archive 2

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, 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)

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)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWarrior1 (talk • contribs) 05:50, January 11, 2007


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
 * Yeah. I'm waiting for the powered armor from Starship Troopers. Trekphiler (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Unknown Cyborgs
I deleted these Unless you intend to mention everybody with an artificial knee or PDA, which is about what these amount to, they don't rise to the level of "cyborg". Trekphiler (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Randall Schmidt - Left ear hearing surgically enhanced with titanium parts.
 * Kevin Warwick - Had a chip implanted to his arm for a while.
 * Steven Mann - Inventor of wearcam, a computer that looks like a regular pair of sunglasses.

A question of logic.

 * Some theorists cite such modifications as contact lenses, hearing aids, or intraocular lenses as examples of fitting humans with technology to enhance their biological capabilities; however, these modifications are no more cybernetic than would be a pen, a wooden leg, or the spears used by chimps to hunt vertebrates.[5]

In the opening paragraphs, I question the logic of this. Wooden legs, pens, spears, all have to be used. They do not play a passive role of augmenting the self. Whilst attachment is temporary like contact lenses and hearing aids, the passive activity of those devices is what would, in my opinion, make that cyber-augmentation. 122.107.73.146 (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But these passiv augmentations are not cybernetic:

"Cybernetics is the interdisciplinary study of the structure of complex systems, especially communication processes, control mechanisms and feedback principles."

Art Section
Is it worth mentioning Giger in the art section? His work, while bizarre and other-worldly, often depicts synthesis between humans (or humanoids) and technology. Max.inglis (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you joking? This article already ticks all the nerd boxes: Battlestar Galactica, Doctor Who, Star Trek.  For crying out loud, there are even mentions of Deus Ex: Invisible War.  When will wikipedia STOP crowding out real information with pop culture irrelevancies? --90.206.122.236 (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Expert Needed?
Please see my last comment, just above this one. There's too much comic-book nonsense, and not enough knowledgeable information. The medical aspects of cybernetics are compelling and interesting enough, they don't need to be hidden inside pop-culture padding. I'd estimate that half of this article could be chopped, and no information would be lost. --90.206.122.236 (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I've tagged the article accordingly. Too much "entertainment", too little "science"... --Arny (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of the precursor terms
Because "cyborg" is a contraction of "cybernetic" and "organism", the term "cybernetic" is often misused in the popular culture to mean "cyborg-like" or what would better be described as "bionic". Even such high-budget productions as Star Trek do that: "The Borg is a cybernetic race." I believe this article could mention such misuse and explain why it's wrong, however I don't feel quite inspired now to write such section. ;) I also wonder where in the article could that be added... It would be nice to see some suggestions here... --Arny (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Master Chief
I'm not a very intelligent person, but I'd like to think I know the difference between a robot, a cyborg, and biologically enhanced human being. I'm just a nerd, never been very intelligent, never much cared to, but my point is that Master Chief, the anonymous protagonist from the Halo franchise of video games, is not a cyborg; or at least not the way I understand the term. If you read the novel 'Halo: The Fall of Reach' which details Master Chief's upbringing as an elite soldier it is stated that he and the other Spartan II candidates are subjected to a gross overhaul of biological enhancements at the age of 15, including things like increasing their senses/reflexes, making their bones nearly indestructible and permanently increasing their physical strength beyond that of a normal human being, like biologically mutating their genetic code. But this isn't achieved through cybernetic enhancements, rather biological enhancements. They are later given training in operating MJOLNIR MKIV powered-armor suits, which only people with their level of reflex can safely learn to control. Never in the origin is it anywhere stated that the Spartans themselves are physically grafted with cybernetic enhancements. The Master Chief does rely heavily on his MJOLNIR powered-armor but it is not a part of his body, it's just an armored suit that he wears, like a Gundam suit. He's not a cyborg. I thought I'd note that before removing him from the list near pop-culture/fiction section. 170.35.224.64 (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering that using the Mjolnir suirs requires alteration of basic physiology, I would say that counts. The biological enhancements serve as a link/bridge/interface.  It's an example of technology that blurs definitions. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "The biological enhancements serve as a link/bridge/interface."
 * No, they don't. Not any more than transplanting an extra thumb would be a link/bridge/interface to a remote control with buttons on two sides. A biological enhancement is just that: biological. The fact that the enhancement would give someone the ability to operate technology that an un-enhanced human couldn't operate doesn't change or add to the biological nature of the enhancement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekker451 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand where you're coming from. I didn't remove the reference. Since it's an encyclopedia article designed to give a description of just how broad the term can be used, it certainly does make sense when you explain it that way. I guess I just feel that in a strict sense of the term he's not a cyborg. Oh yeah, that other entry was left from my work station, this one is from my home computer, just FYI. 24.9.241.252 (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's all good. If nothing else, Master Chief serves as a modern reference point as well as demonstrates that the term can be somewhat fluid in regards to relevant technology. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a Cyborg?
I just checked this article to see if it makes the classic mistake and it does. If you care to read Norbert Wieners Cybernetics its clear that a cyborg is any 'robot' system that uses cybernetic feedback or interactive feedback. Technically it includes very few machines because cybernetic feedback is very difficult to implement, however it does include all humans and most animals. The other definition was based on an error and a marketing gimmick using a flashy word to make an SF 'monster' seem more exciting. People have picked up the word again and again and run with it. Lucien86 (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wiener doesn't coin the term, Kline and Clynes do. And they are clear that they are talking about organisims enhanced by cybernetic systems. Mostly pharmacological ones because, hey, it was the era of better living through chemistry, but they also consider Yoga, Hypnotism and Nuclear powered lungs. Lot   49a talk 19:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

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)


 * They aren't androids either. They're genetically engineered beings, presumably based on human templates. --Dekker451 (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strctly speaking, being "engineered" makes them androids: in the form of a man, which is what "android" means. I do, however, take your point. "artificial people"?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems extremely broad to me. Granted, the constituent parts from the Latin amount to "human form", but by that standard a mannequin or RealDoll could be considered an android. In my experience it's always been defined as (or something practically similar to) 'a robot with a human appearance or form' and robots are strictly mechanical.


 * Run-on sentence incoming!: If you were to argue that in the not-so-distant future robot may come to include some biological type of automaton--and in turn an android robot--and I think replicants in Bladerunner were more or less intended to be automatons (independently thinking/acting units were considered to be "defective"), then I would agree with you, but it's not how the terms are commonly used in the present.


 * Merriam-Webster Online definition


 * Dictionary.com definition
 * --Dekker451 (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Within the SF context, I agree entirely, there's always been a distinction between "android" & "AP" (be it clone or replicant). By definition, "android" is "man-like". I am not, however, suggesting this broad definition be adopted within SF, or here. :) That said, calling an AP a robot is simply wrong, since robot has always meant mechanical. My understanding of the replicants (fuzzy memory warning) is, they were APs, not android robots. And, to come back to the page subject, no cyborg anywhere in sight.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  17:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Bacterial Cyborg?
Since a cyborg can technically be any living organism, would the partially-synthetic Mycoplasma laboratorium be a cyborg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.85.137 (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Artificial life form, more accurately. Unless it's got mechanical parts.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Cyborgs in sports section
One model used for replacing a leg lost at the knee has actually improved runners' marathon times by as much as 30 minutes. The leg is shaped out of a long, flat piece of metal that extends backwards then curves under itself forming a U shape. This functions as a spring, allowing for runners to be propelled forward with by just placing their weight on the limb. This is the only form that allows the wearer to sprint.

This is quite a claim to be made without any supporting evidence. And before anyone throws up one of the studies done on Oscar Pistorius please take note of the fact that he failed to achieve the qualifying time for the Beijing Olympics and studies done are dubious at best in their integrity.

I'll leave it up for now in the hopes someone can find some evidence to support this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.33.125 (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed this section for the following reasons:


 * This section is original research. Most refers to steroid use and blood doping which have nothing to do with cyborgs.  Refernces to future athletes using implants to improve performnce violates WP:FUTURE.  Supporting evidence was requested in 2008, but nothing provided.  I looked myself but can find none.  If anyone want to restore this section, I suggest they obtain some reliable sources first 87.112.35.86 (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Cyborg Series
Why is crypto-anarchism contained within the boxed selection? The article contains no mentions of cyborgs at all. Similarily, why is Cyberpunk in 'Politics'? It is already contained within 'centres', which I also find dubious as there is no mention of cyborgs within that article either (Obviously cyborgs are found within this genre but they are present in several others also). There is no special significance so If there are no objections I will remove cryto-anarchism completely and keep cyberpunk only in centres. FloreatAntiquaDomus —Preceding unsigned comment added by FloreatAntiquaDomus (talk • contribs) 16:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Altered FloreatAntiquaDomus 20:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of the whole term?
I have read the article and it's not really one of my favorites. Of course it's legit to try projecting terms from science-fiction, but i think in some ways it goes too far. I'd say the typical Joe would think of Cyborg as a "man machine symbiosis where the cyborg parts enhance the function of the original limb" and imho that's what it always meant in Sci-Fi.

I don't know who's the king of meanings here, finally stating "it means that", but I'd encourage him to take a new approach on the definition of Cyborg. I don't think that "wearing an earring with a blinking light" or being a poor handicapped person needing a pace maker makes you a cyborg. Maybe it is by definition of "whoever decides this", but it's simply far away from reality where people don't account medical implants as being the base for being a cyborg. Ask 20 of your friends what Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker are and i bet you get like 20 different answers but probably none like "Wooo, he's a cyborg". I'd just be carefull to call everyone wearing any kind of prosthetics a cyborg, even if they contain electronics. Maybe someone would like to help improving the exact definition of the term? I'd prefer if that definition reflects that this term derives from sci-fi, not from medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.191.111 (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess being a cyborg would mean having more than several unconnected individual parts. First of all, the artificial parts should be integrated into a kind of a complete system with, say, common power source and common points for interconnection to the living being. At first I thought defining cyborg as an entity unable to live and function without the artificial parts, but then again Darth Vader would become a cyborg, being unable to walk and breathe by himself; so could be any today's person having both a pacemaker and an artificial leg (or two...) Moreover, I've got a feeling that a criterion for being a cyborg would be to actually have MORE artificial parts than organic ones... Well, just my 0.02€... --Arny (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Without much detail it seems to me that those sort of things would be cybernetic implants and limbs etc. My mother had metal heart valves and you could hear them on the other side of the room at quiet times but I would not describe her as a cyborg lol. To me a cyborg would be some percentage of artificial parts/original and probably around a 50/50 split - that may be moot though as if the 30 % you have is your lungs, heart and brain that would probably make you a cyborg in my eyes.
 * The definition is fundamental so I will look it up in various places and form some descriptions for posting here in an attempt to find a best fit solution. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Interestingly the OED definition furthers that by implying it is only applicable when it extends normal human limitations . If they had given my mother valves that worked better than normal human ones she would have been a cyborg according to the OED.
 * Entry from OED Online
 * Cyborg - [Blend of CYB(ERNETIC a. and ORG(ANISM.]
 * A person whose physical tolerances or capabilities are extended beyond normal human limitations by a machine or other external agency that modifies the body's functioning; an integrated man-machine system.
 * Steve Austin (six million dollar man) = cyborg, my mum = not a cyborg Chaosdruid (talk)


 * Also there is the possibility of confusion between Android and Cyborg. As far as I can see and android is a machine that can have human parst added to it to make it look human. The problem there is that if the machine was everything except the brain, would that still be an android or would it be a cyborg. In reality if the definition is "everything except that which makes you human" then the brain is the only thing that is needed to remain.
 * Thus an Android could be a human body with an artificial brain and a Cyborg could be a machine with an human brain.
 * By that definition a Dalek would be a cyborg (as it has fully mechanical body but a human brain) and Terminator would not be (as it has an artificial brain).
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) The good news is that we have sources for determining what a cyborg is. Specifically, the paper where it's first coined.

The term cyborg was coined in 1960 in a paper by Kline and Clynes when they were discussing adapting humans for space. You can read the paper Cyborgs and Space on here: http://web.mit.edu/digitalapollo/Documents/Chapter1/cyborgs.pdf (It's really interesting!)

They are very clear in the paper that they are not just talking about implanting things in people. Quoting:


 * In the past evolution brought about the altering of bodily functions to suit different environments. Starting as of now, it will be possible to achieve this to some degree without alteration of heredity by suitable biochemical, physiological, and electronic modifications of man's existing modus vivendi.

Their primary interest was in making self-regulating (i.e. not requiring conscious acts on the part of the cyborg to maintain homestasis) manmachine systems. In the paper, they actually (and this is sort of awesome) talk about Yoga and Hypnosis as control systems that can impact the functioning of an organism. They discuss using drugs (automatically administered) to keep pilots awake for longer, protect from radiation, and to induce hypothermia and hibernation at appropriate times during a mission. Indeed, aside from brief references to electrical physiological solutions, it's pretty much 5 pages of "ways we can use pharmacological tech to adapt people to space".

Hmm, the problem here is that a person who is not at "normal capabilities" has a device attached to aid them and restores them to normal function: not a cyborg. A person who is not at "normal capabilities" has a device attached which allows them to perform better at those tasks than someone at "normal capability" (super-human): a cyborg.

If one was to take the meaning as "beyond their normal capabilities", then the hearing aid, glasses, contact lenses, a telephone, tv, etc., are all advancing us beyond our normal personal limitations - after all how far can your shout be heard, I can talk to someone on the other side of the world using my mobile phone (cell phone for those in the US).

If the hearing aid (like Mrs Six Million Dollar Man) allows "super-human" abilities then it is a cybernetic device. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC) In the 80s the cultural emphasis turned to hardware adaptations - installed artificial limbs and implants and endoskeletons and the like, but the origins of the term are still there and still meaningful. The cyborgs of the near future will very likely not have mechanical parts at all. It'll be nano and bio. Lot  49a talk 07:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"Some theorists cite such modifications as contact lenses, hearing aids, or intraocular lenses as examples of fitting humans with technology to enhance their biological capabilities; however, these modifications are no more cybernetic than would be a pen or a wooden leg" There are two opinions here, and the sentence is biased toward one of them. I have been taking an English class with a focus on cyborgs, and it has changed my mind and I believe that a hearing aid enhances your body and becomes a part of you, even if isn't subcutaneous, and is therefore a cyborg part. Contact lenses are even literally put inside of you. That fits the bill for a being with both biological and artificial parts, in my opinion. This should be changed to not be so biased. Rhollis7 (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Diabetes?
I just read in the article the next sentence:

In a typical example, a human fitted with a heart pacemaker or an insulin pump (if the person has diabetes) might be considered a cyborg, since these mechanical parts enhance the body's "natural" mechanisms through synthetic feedback mechanisms.

So if the human does not have diabetes, that human cannot be considered to be a cyborg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.8.166 (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The diabetes part only referred to the insulin pump. Dylan (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that these enhance the body "beyond normal cpabilities". If you had both legs amputated and some replacement limbs afdded that allowed you to runs at 30 mph or jump 30 feet then that would be enhancement. Making your heart beat normally or substituting a pump for your pancrea is not really enhancing, merely replacing. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, a pancreas will sometimes give out. An insulin pump could concievably be constructed in such a way that it would be less likely to give out, and could be replaced more easily. 71.192.47.75 (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Status of Grox
Why are the grox listed as mechanically based? There doesn't seem to be a reason given. They look like a fuzzy rodent version of the classic biologically based cyborg. Of course, that's just my opinion. If there was a source mentioned, this would make more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.47.75 (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits
There have been some edits to the lead and other sections which have significant impact on the lead opening sentence and the section on current cyborg status.

The lead is a summary of the rest of the article and the opening sentence was discussed and consensus formed about it. Significant changes, such as those proposed, really need to be discussed as I have reverted them twice now without anyone trying to discuss.

The issue seems to be a perceived issue with the initial definition. Unfortunately the lead cannot really do that, the section on origin and definition would be a better place to start. The lead opening sentence is from the initial definition taken from the ref given, the lead goes through changes of definition and technologies in the second third and fourth paragraphs, the opening paragraph is sound as it is. Changing it to the proposed text cuts out the original definition and repeats information that is later in the lead. It also introduces material which is not cited by the ref, as the editors who changed it did not supply a new ref.

The changes to the individual cyborgs section seem to be an attempt to wipe Steve Mann off the article. Alluding to a "Title change: no such thing as "cyborg passports" First paragraph: unverifiable source", is not really acceptable - The ref exists ISBN 0920397514, 9780920397510.

The second edit, "text and reference removal: the text is not based on such sources.", is also a little problematic - the text is based on the source, but only the last half of the sentence is based on that source. The rest of the material is easily confirmed though:

Globe and Mail: Toronto Life: NYT: USA Today
 * "godfather of cyborg art"
 * "Mr. Mann also is the first cyborg rights activist"
 * "Steve Mann, a professor at the University of Toronto - often referred to as 'the cyborg'"
 * "Steve Mann, who was dubbed 'the world’s first cyborg'"
 * "STEVE MANN, ..., has lived as a cyborg for more than 20 years,"
 * "Dr. Mann, ..., who calls himself one of the world's first cyborgs"
 * Movie review only, though written by staff - "Steve Mann, the world's first real cyborg,"
 * Published 2004 - "Professor's 25 years of cyborg life mirrors tech advances" so would confirm first cyborg date for him was 1979

Most say that he "calls himself" the first cyborg rather than them doing it, though undoubtedly he is the most publicised and the first cyborg activist according to one of those reports. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Mann versus Dobelle
I have read Marisa Jahn's "Byproduct: On the Excess of Embedded Art Practices" as part of my thesis on cyborgs. The book does not say nor imply that "In the 1970s Steve Mann invented, designed, and built various computational seeing aids, and computer vision systems, some permanently attached." This would have been an outstanding achievement in the 1970 specially if these "inventions" had been created by Mann who was still a teenager in 1979. Mann's unreliable claims to press and to Wikipedia seem to be an attempt to wipe off William Dobelle's sourced and verifiable achievements on vision systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario1990 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Status of Terminators
Terminators? Really? Just because there are some bits of organic material on a robot/android doesn't make them a cyborg. The organic material has to serve some function in order to be a cyborg (or part of the original creature). That's just not the case with terminators. Cyborg = organic creature grafted to machine. A machine grafted to a machine is not a cyborg, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.178.101.162 (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't "bits of organic material" on a robot/android make them a cyborg? The organic material does serve a function, namely that of camouflage...  Anyhow, the organic material doesn't need to be functional, per se.  That's not part of the definition.  Also, a machine grafted to a machine isn't a cyborg because it has no organic component, so that question didn't mean much.  Site note: Cyborg does NOT mean organic creature grafted to machine...  The definition from this article reads as "A cyborg, short for "cybernetic organism", is a being with both biological and artificial (e.g. electronic, mechanical or robotic) parts."  That doesn't mean the that there has to be a base organic creature, just as there doesn't have to be a base robotic creature.  It's a fusion, that's all.  Also, "graft" is not even a good word to use as a definition because that assumes that an organic part cannot grow into a robotic format.  So going by the definition provided at the beginning of the article, a Terminator, with both biological and artificial parts, is definitely a cyborg.  Of course, Kyle Reese agrees (he calls the Terminator a cyborg in the film). 130.76.96.144 (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See posts/thread above Chaosdruid (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about Talk:Cyborg/Archive 2?
 * Anyhow while I agree the Terminators are more precisely androids, not cyborgs (the article says 'Generally, the term "cyborg" is used to refer to a human with bionic, or robotic, implants.'), the broader definition of cyborg at the top of the article includes them - and this reflects common usage also. ··gracefool&#9786; 00:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

PETA lawsuit on Cyborg Cockroach
I removed a claim in the article that PETA has made about the cyborg cockroach violating a Michigan law of veterinary surgery without license. While it is a fact that PETA has made his claim publicly, and has registered this with the attorney general of MI, there is in fact no law that states this. in fact, with the exception of a few (cephalopods for example) invertebrates are not considered as animals in the eyes of law. Please see Animal testing on invertebrates for references and clarification. I understand that PETA wishes there was such a law, but please verify before re-adding as we do not want to amplify incorrect information to Wikipedia. I left in a link to the article, and kept the phrase that PETA disapproves of the work, but removed the unfounded claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4:4A80:926:14F9:51AD:DA66:7AC2 (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It was myself that added this information. I got this from the PETA web-site assuming it to be accurate, but living on the other side of the pond, I did not have the background information to think it might not be true.  Thanks for clarifying this.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

most basic technologies
" ... the physical attachments humanity has with even the most basic technologies have already made them cyborgs.[4] In a typical example, ..." a rock or a pointy stick. Seriously. A tool is a tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.48.37 (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Types of cyborgs in fiction
Seems like the In Popular Culture section would cover this better than a short list of four out of dozens of famous examples.138.229.167.213 (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Content of the "In the military" section
So as of right now the "In the military" section only contains content on animals with brain implants. I hence suggest to only have a summaric sentence about it there and link to Brain implant where the content should moved. Then this section could be expanded with other forms human augmentations used / researched by the military other than brain implants in animals / brain implants in general.

--Fixuture (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sugested fate of new "Social Media" section
IMO it is a good catch for a missing wp article; See User talk:Sophie2017.

@Old users: please don't jump in with the new page and let the new user have the first glory of creating the first article. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

NPOV?
Just noticed the phrase "our society" in the introductory paragraph, and I'm thinking, "whose society?" And even assuming any society, who in that society is, presumably, uncomfortable with that? Edited the paragraph to separate a sense of "the" out to "a" - as in, this is an idea fiction often explores (human discomfort - which I'd change to say contempt - for over-dependence on technology).

Cyborg is 半机械人 in Chinese SybilleTheuth (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Cybrog is 赛博朋克
Yes it is 195.195.81.211 (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cyborg. 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/20120214194015/http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html to http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140113143241/http://web.ncsu.edu/abstract/science/wms-cockroach-steering/ to http://web.ncsu.edu/abstract/science/wms-cockroach-steering/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Distinction between cyborg and bionic
To those who are experts in the field, I don't think the distinction between cyborg and bionic in the second paragraph of the Leads is clear to a lay person. Could someone clarify? Based on some brief research on the Internet, some people use them interchangeably, but some suggest there are differences but not very clearly articulated. Thanks! Santa at nasa (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)