Poll: What is the difference between cyborg and wearing power armor?

[CrystalShadow]

In rhe strictest sense of the meaning, anyone relying on technology to perform a function they aren't inherently capable of, (or replace one of their Iriginal biological functions) is a cyborg.

That, is not what peopkd typically think of though, because it implies humans have been cyborgs from the first moment they picked up a rock to hit simething withm rather than just use their bodies.

wearing glasses makes a person a cyborg
Certainly, in the modern world, the technology we are using at this very moment, which essentially does a small degree of our thinking for us, but more significantly, allows remote communication over vast differences also makes us all cyborgs.

However, what is more typically thought of when people think of cyborgs is where technology is directly and permanently linked to a person's body.

A scuba tank is essential to a person's survival underwater for more than a few seconds, but it diesn't make them a cyborg.

An artificial leg, again, technically does make someone a cyborg (as per the same definition that makes someIne wearing hlasses one), but in the more specific definition, if the leg is permanently integrated with their body they are a cyborgm if it's removable, they are not.

This basically results from the two definitions of cyborg being
1. Using technology to improve, add to or replace functions of a biological organism (broad definition. Makes pretty much all of us cyborgs already)
2. Integrating technology directly into an organism.

Leaving aside definition 1, I would say your character isn't a cyborg. It doesn't matter if the suit keeps them alive.(remember me mentioning skuba gear? - how about a space suit on an astronaut? Are they a cyborg while wearing it?)
What matters is, is the suit physically attached to them?
Would it essentially take a surgical procedure to seperate them from the suit?
Or could she do it just on a whim? (even if doing so would perhaps kill her?)

 

[Scarim Coral]

As everybody pointed out already, cyborg is pretty much have the metal part embedded into your flesh pernamently or it's become your limb etc while power armor is just an armour that can still be removed.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

In the strictest sense of the word as it originated in control theory, a cyborg is any abstract system that demonstrates behavior similar to that of an organic creature. A robot is one example, but more abstract (and more interesting) examples include emergent behaviors in swarms of ants, large companies or organizations (where employees and departments are numerous enough to be abstracted as subsystems with predictable behavior and specialized roles), and bacteria simulated on computers. A cyborg must be a non-living analog to a living thing, or at least be a living thing with non-living analogs to biological processes (artificial organs or limbs, computers taking over or augmenting brain function, etc).

On the other hand, a person in power armor is just a person in power armor, and the fact that it displays the behavior of an organic creature comes only from the fact that he or she actually is one and doesn't really satisfy the definition of "non-living analogs to life processes" any more than regular clothes do.

You need to go look up the definition of cyborg. Cyborgs, or cybernetic organisms require a biological component to fall under the category of cyborg. Robots are not strictly cyborgs as they're generally considered to be non-organic mechanical automatons. Robots that include biological could be argued to be cyborgs, but they're still synthetic automatons. Generally speaking cybernetic organisms are a subject of trans-humanism not robotics or computer science. In this very case terminator got it wrong. Cyborgs are foremost biological organisms integrated with machines. A synthetic organism that mimics a life form is a -droid of some description, the example being this: A synthetic machine that mimics humans is an android.

 

[Antari]

If she requires the suit to keep her bodily functions going. Shes a Cyborg. If she can take it off and throw it in a closet its Power Armor.

So, everyone who needed an iron lung was a cyborg?

An extremely early version of one, yes. If they require machinery to stay alive they fall under that definition.

 

[Abomination]

I'd say it is neither power armorr nor makes her a cyborg.

What you've done is militarized her life-support system.

It's more akin to armour than making her cybernetic as to be a cyborg a limb must be REPLACED by a cybernetic piece. She has adopted an exoskeleton - something that she would not "naturally" have and as far as I can tell all her internal organs are organic.

The suit isn't part of her body, she is encased in it and it gives her life support.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

If it's hooked into your body, like a prosthetic limb or a bionic eye, then you're a cyborg.
If you can just take it off without any problems, then it's power armour.

Cyborg parts might be partially removable (you they might be subject to wear and tear and need to be replaced after all), but there will always be a base which can't be removed (or implanted) without surgery. Like the socket for the bionic eye that is hooked up to your nerve system.

 

[Souplex]

Power armor is worn like armor.
Cyborgs have parts of their bodies replaced with machines.

 

[renegade7]

In the strictest sense of the word as it originated in control theory, a cyborg is any abstract system that demonstrates behavior similar to that of an organic creature. A robot is one example, but more abstract (and more interesting) examples include emergent behaviors in swarms of ants, large companies or organizations (where employees and departments are numerous enough to be abstracted as subsystems with predictable behavior and specialized roles), and bacteria simulated on computers. A cyborg must be a non-living analog to a living thing, or at least be a living thing with non-living analogs to biological processes (artificial organs or limbs, computers taking over or augmenting brain function, etc).

On the other hand, a person in power armor is just a person in power armor, and the fact that it displays the behavior of an organic creature comes only from the fact that he or she actually is one and doesn't really satisfy the definition of "non-living analogs to life processes" any more than regular clothes do.

You need to go look up the definition of cyborg. Cyborgs, or cybernetic organisms require a biological component to fall under the category of cyborg. Robots are not strictly cyborgs as they're generally considered to be non-organic mechanical automatons. Robots that include biological could be argued to be cyborgs, but they're still synthetic automatons. Generally speaking cybernetic organisms are a subject of trans-humanism not robotics or computer science. In this very case terminator got it wrong. Cyborgs are foremost biological organisms integrated with machines. A synthetic organism that mimics a life form is a -droid of some description, the example being this: A synthetic machine that mimics humans is an android.

Trust me, I know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Living things, robots, and biological/robotic hybrids are subsets of the cybernetic organisms.

 

[titankore]

Not much of an addition to the conversation (which the general consensus is yes she is a cyborg) but I finished up the drawing originally used:

Spoiler

Also be sure to check out the series!
[youtube]https://youtu.be/wU25f9QRBNE[/youtube]

Moderator edit: Large image spoilered.

 

[pookie101]

cyborg is someone who has somethign implanted.. a hip replacement makes someone a cyborg.. an iron lung doesnt

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

My definition would be:
- Power Armour: A suit which, by itself, does nothing, but with a human inside enhances their capabilities. It can be put on and taken off.
- Cyborg: An organic entity fused with tech. They aren't two disparate things like a human and a suit of armour, but one entity made up of both.
- Robot: A simple automaton, entirely technological, able to perform only a limited set of tasks for which it was specifically designed/programmed.
- Android: A sentient, wholly technological entity. Unlike a robot, an android can think, learn and react/adapt to things. It could be a genius or the intelligence of a child, but the key is it has a sense of self and self-preservation.

In the instance of the OP, it's not so clear cut, but I would have to say cyborg. On the basis that the character described cannot survive without the tech, and has in fact had organic parts replaced by tech, she is a single entity made up of organic and technological parts. Whether it grants superhuman capabilities or not isn't relevant, only whether or not she can function without the armour.

 

[sageoftruth]

If she requires the suit to keep her bodily functions going. Shes a Cyborg. If she can take it off and throw it in a closet its Power Armor.

So, everyone who needed an iron lung was a cyborg?

Pretty much. Like most of these labels, it's usually not a yes/no question, but rather something that can be quantified for more accuracy. That way we can differentiate between Tony Stark and Adam Jensen. So, basically, a guy with an iron lung would be sorta cyborg, while Robocop is mostly cyborg.

 

[EHKOS]

Great, now I'm wondering if Dingo Egret is a cyborg.

 

[BlackBark]

Snip

I'm really surprised by the poll results. I would say she's definitely not a cyborg because she's just wearing a suit. It doesn't matter if it is her life support system, because you could still remove her from it and place her in a bed with static life support equipment. People who use a ventilator aren't cyborgs, but still require the equipment to live.

It also doesn't matter that her limbs were removed in order to fit into it, because it's still a suit.

To put it simply, a cyborg is part organism, part machine; it must be a joining of the two such that they are viewed as inseperable under all equivalent circumstances.

Power armour is quite a broad term, but I would say it is simply a suit of armour that provides any number of a variety of enhancements to the wearer. It doesn't mean they can take it off, though. They could be sealed in, they could have been cut up in order to fit; that's all irrelevant.

Finally, you can have a mix of both, such as a powered armour unit that requires a modified (such as with cybernetic implants) human pilot in order to operate it...or you could just have a cyborg in some armour, I suppose.

Having said that, I don't always think it's clear cut. By my own definition, if you view your character as being inseperable from her life support system, then perhaps you could justify calling her a cyborg. However, based on her appearance and your description, I would say she is just wearing power armour.

Nice art, by the way.

Anyway, hope my answer is of some use.

 

[DoPo]

- Android: A sentient, wholly technological entity. Unlike a robot, an android can think, learn and react/adapt to things. It could be a genius or the intelligence of a child, but the key is it has a sense of self and self-preservation.

Random and mostly useless information: the term "android" refer to a machine that looks male. This is because it starts with the Greek prefix for "male" or "man" or something to that effect. A female version would be a "gyndroid".

Of course pretty much nobody cares about the etymology of the word, so "android" can refer to either and it is used in that fashion. Still occasionally, I've seen "gyndroid" being used to refer to female ones so the word is not completely obscure, just mostly.

 

[DoPo]

Snip

I'm really surprised by the poll results. I would say she's definitely not a cyborg because she's just wearing a suit. It doesn't matter if it is her life support system, because you could still remove her from it and place her in a bed with static life support equipment. People who use a ventilator aren't cyborgs, but still require the equipment to live.

It also doesn't matter that her limbs were removed in order to fit into it, because it's still a suit.

To put it simply, a cyborg is part organism, part machine; it must be a joining of the two such that they are viewed as inseperable under all equivalent circumstances.

So, if somebody has cybernetic eyes and limbs, they aren't a cyborg, because technicality[footnote]heh, TECHnically. Pun.[/footnote], they'll survive those being removed?

 

[LordLundar]

Power armour is just as it is named. It is a powered suit of armour, not unlike what knights in medieval times wore, except no power source to them. Cyborgs on the other hand have to physically replace parts of their body with mechanical parts for whatever reason with the replaced parts serving as a replacement for the removed part. To than end, a neural interface system for aiding in operating a mech as example does not inherently make a person a cyborg, but needing to use a similar neural interface system for any computer interaction can fall in that territory.

Now it's not to say that a cyborg can't operate a power armour, with the X-Com: EW being a solid example and pretty close to what you have here. The operators out in the field are definately using power armour, but they still had to have limbs removed to do so and those are replaced with cybernetic limbs outside of the armour. The person is still a cyborg, they just switch between limbs that they can wear in a dress uniform and one that is for crushing alien skulls through a concrete wall.

 

[BlackBark]

Snip

So, if somebody has cybernetic eyes and limbs, they aren't a cyborg, because technicality[footnote]heh, TECHnically. Pun.[/footnote], they'll survive those being removed?

That's not what I meant, although I don't think I explained it clearly. I was actually trying to say that whether or not it is essntial to life should not be considered as part of the definition at all. I think it has much more to do with whether or not the object (such as a replacement limb or eye) is considered as part of the overall organism. I don't feel that a set of armour (even if it doubles as a life support system) can be considered as part of the person who wears it, where as I do feel that a replacement limb can be considered as part of their body. Not sure if others will agree on that point, though.

 

[DoPo]

Snip

So, if somebody has cybernetic eyes and limbs, they aren't a cyborg, because technicality[footnote]heh, TECHnically. Pun.[/footnote], they'll survive those being removed?

That's not what I meant, although I don't think I explained it clearly. I was actually trying to say that whether or not it is essntial to life should not be considered as part of the definition at all. I think it has much more to do with whether or not the object (such as a replacement limb or eye) is considered as part of the overall organism. I don't feel that a set of armour (even if it doubles as a life support system) can be considered as part of the person who wears it, where as I do feel that a replacement limb can be considered as part of their body. Not sure if others will agree on that point, though.

Seems like an arbitrary distinction, to me. If it's only about "replacing", then people who have been technologically enhanced would also not count as cyborgs, yet a lot of cyberpunk fiction has people who embed all sorts of gadgets in themselves under the umbrella terms of "cybernetics" - not stuff that defintely replaces a body part or a function but tech that adds whole new ones of these - computers worn inside forearms, slots for augmented reality vision enhancers (visors, goggles, and other), interfaces to plug in directly to machines or software. And so on and so forth.

I think you'll agree that a person who hasn't replaced limbs or organs but nevertheless has had technology added to them in such a way they are still a singular entity, that's going to fall under "cyborg". Based on this, I can see somebody being literally kept alive by tech also being a cyborg. Not as a replacement of the body, but as an enhancement.

This wouldn't really be out of place - a person who has their brain replaces with a cybernetic one is no less a cyborg than a person who has everything but their brain replaced with cybernetics. That's not a real exaggeration, either - in RoboCop, the titular character's body is almost entirely replaced by technology. And one of the baddies in one of the sequels (number 2, I believe?) was a brain placed in a robotic body.

Is a person encased in technology that is the only thing that keeps them alive that different from RoboCop? Are they really that much of "not a single entity" than a brain (or whatever was left of Murphy) in a robotic body? Sure, you can take the person out of the life support suit and plug them to a normal one, but in a similar fashion, you can just take that brain out of the robot and place it in a vat somewhere. They can both be kept alive afterwards, yet apparently one would count as a cyborg when supported by tech, the other one not.

I guess fail to really see the distinction there or why it should be made - person + tech is a whole entity, take the tech away, they are not the same thing - be they a cripple, vegetable or just mundane non-enhanced human. Adding some arbitrary restrictions like literally life preservation not counting. Despite those being quite integral to any organism. Well, at least those that tend to survive, anyway.

 

[titankore]

I really like how this started off as a seemingly easy question on the most appropriate description to a character and evolved into a debate on where technology becomes a part of us and what that means. "Have we been cyborgs since we picked up a stone to fight predators or put glass in front of our eyeballs to see? Would someone on life support be a cyborg regardless of if it is mobile or not?" This continues to be an interesting read :3