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

[K12]

A cyborgs mechanical parts are "part of them" in an essential way like regular people's organs and limbs are.

The biological and mechanical parts work together within a system (digestive, circulatory, visual etc.) there must be soe way in which the biological and technology systems work together to achieve a function. (Such as a mechanical heart pumping biological blood into biological veins or a robotic arm controlled by biological nerves).

A cyborg is somehow incomplete without their mechanial parts (either they die or are unable to function in everyday life as they can with their parts all intact). Power armour enhances human biological systems which are perfectly functional independently or add in new systems (like jetpacks etc.)

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

- 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 "gyndoid".

Interesting note. I would've thought a link apparent with "andro..." as in "androgynous", whereby something lacks a specific gender or is a blend of both. I've never understood why androids have any form of gender where they do, such as C3PO and the like. Why design appearance, program in or teach gender behaviours at all to a machine that won't be sexually reproducing, self-aware or otherwise? (The exception to this would be in Ex Machina, where the AI's femininity is an important point of note along with Robin Williams in Bicentennial Man.)

 

[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 "gyndoid".

Interesting note. I would've thought a link apparent with "andro..." as in "androgynous", whereby something lacks a specific gender or is a blend of both. I've never understood why androids have any form of gender where they do, such as C3PO and the like. Why design appearance, program in or teach gender behaviours at all to a machine that won't be sexually reproducing, self-aware or otherwise? (The exception to this would be in Ex Machina, where the AI's femininity is an important point of note along with Robin Williams in Bicentennial Man.)

I've pondered that as well, to be honest. And for quite a while, as well - I remember mulling it over when I was about 7 or so, at least. The best explanation I have so far (in-universe, that is) is that they are simply more user friendly that way, when people (the users) can more easily identify them and accept them. For C3PO in particular it comes in handy, for he is a protocol droid and he's supposed to talk to others, it's his entire purpose. It would making him humanoid[footnote]well, even though not all species in Star Wars are humanoid, a sizeable portion appear to be. Some others get an extra pair of hands or something but still mostly fit the humanoid shape. Of course, there are the Hutt inhabitants and others but the humanoid form seems to be wide spread enough so the protocol droids we've seen are molded after it.[/footnote] makes sense, in that respect, since he'd be taken more seriously, rather than being a glorified talk piece. Imagine if a thrash can rolled up and started negotiating with somebody - it would likely be viewed like not more than a phone. Heck, in episode 4, R2D2 is just a messenger.

At any rate, human-like (or at least humanoid-like) can be attributed to appealing to the perceptions of the users.

On the other hand, that explanation is not always really good. A humanoid frame is not always needed and, indeed, it's sometimes a hindrance even in-universe. The example I personally like the least is giant humanoid mecha - this I am pretty sure I've thought about around the same time as "normal sized" robots and it made no sense to me. Yeah, to me - a mere kid, it made no sense why somebody will make giant humanoid robots. I guess that's the reason I never really got much into the genre. A giant thing on two legs has much more trouble keeping balance, for once, it's much easier to hit and it gains not really much from being that form. As for "normal sized" robots that don't really gain anything from being more human-like, I can point again at Star Wars - the battle droids from episodes 1-3 are really rather useless. No wonder a clone army of flesh and blood, squishier species was created - the droids were fucking awful at the literally one job they have - the thing they have in the in the name: battle. Sure, a swarm of them can, like, do damage, but it's no thanks to being humanoid and having personality and stuff.

 

[DoPo]

You'd make bipedal mecha for the same reason that bipedal locomotion confers an evolutionary advantage for many species. Bipeds are slower and less stable than quadrupeds, but can achieve long sustained top speeds. A biped can free their forelimbs to secure food, fight, handle young, and even make tools. A biped on a flat landscape has a serious advantage, which is why you see many animals adopting bipedal behavior (such as Meerkats) at times, for defense.

Only, none of this makes sense, given that it's a machine we can build to accomodate whatever we need it to do. Oh, it needs limbs to use tools? We attach five more arms. Or even embed the tools into it, so it doesn't need to hold them. Or whatever. Long sustained top speed? It's literally a machine - I don't think whether it has legs or wheels would be the bulk of its problems in speed. Yeah, given that we have cars and stuff that don't seem to have a major problem with being speedy, I'm fairly confident giving the robot legs isn't that big of a priority. And so on and so forth - giant humanoids in fiction was never something I could look at and go "yeah, it's TOTALLY appropriate".

Maybe robots in Star Wars need to be mobile on a wide variety of surfaces, more than be fast or limber. Maybe concerns of mass and storage space are also a real concern, just on a much bigger scale.

I mean, we could build a GIANT tank in real life you know, but it would be a big stinking target and it would require dedicated airlifting. In real life you mass produce weapons systems with an eye to saving money, saving fuel, saving space. Star Wars would have the same concerns, just on a different scale.

The battle droids are repeatedly shown to be pretty much useless and moreover, their added "personality" has almost always been shown as a weakness, never a boon. Sure, perhaps the needs are different, but I don't see them met by the implementation of these robots.

 

[Jadedvet]

I don't have anything new to add to the cyborg vs power armor debate but I think you've found an interesting bit of story worth exploring in your work.

Some questions I would want to know - What do other people looking at her see? In your world does she look like a cyborg or would people see a suit of power armor? If its the latter, how would they react to someone who doesn't take off her power armor? Is this normal or would they think she is looking for trouble?

 

[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?

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.

Everything except Extremis and Bleeding edge = Power armor. Those = some version of cyborg. I don't think it's that hard actually. I'm not a cyborg when I drive my car, and a guy in a wheelchair isn't, right? And of course neither is a kid with polio in an iron lung.

I can't quite agree with you there. You can get our of your car and you are fine. The person in the wheelchair can be moved to a bed and be perfectly fine. Remove that kid from the iron lung, and its a little different story. Even though the machinery may not be implanted in him, more of him in it. The kid requires it to live, and the machine wouldn't exist except to keep people with that condition alive. It may not be modernized and pocket size but by definition it would make the kid a cyborg.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I've pondered that as well, to be honest. And for quite a while, as well - I remember mulling it over when I was about 7 or so, at least. The best explanation I have so far (in-universe, that is) is that they are simply more user friendly that way, when people (the users) can more easily identify them and accept them. For C3PO in particular it comes in handy, for he is a protocol droid and he's supposed to talk to others, it's his entire purpose. It would making him humanoid[footnote]well, even though not all species in Star Wars are humanoid, a sizeable portion appear to be. Some others get an extra pair of hands or something but still mostly fit the humanoid shape. Of course, there are the Hutt inhabitants and others but the humanoid form seems to be wide spread enough so the protocol droids we've seen are molded after it.[/footnote] makes sense, in that respect, since he'd be taken more seriously, rather than being a glorified talk piece. Imagine if a thrash can rolled up and started negotiating with somebody - it would likely be viewed like not more than a phone. Heck, in episode 4, R2D2 is just a messenger.

At any rate, human-like (or at least humanoid-like) can be attributed to appealing to the perceptions of the users.

On the other hand, that explanation is not always really good. A humanoid frame is not always needed and, indeed, it's sometimes a hindrance even in-universe. The example I personally like the least is giant humanoid mecha - this I am pretty sure I've thought about around the same time as "normal sized" robots and it made no sense to me. Yeah, to me - a mere kid, it made no sense why somebody will make giant humanoid robots. I guess that's the reason I never really got much into the genre. A giant thing on two legs has much more trouble keeping balance, for once, it's much easier to hit and it gains not really much from being that form. As for "normal sized" robots that don't really gain anything from being more human-like, I can point again at Star Wars - the battle droids from episodes 1-3 are really rather useless. No wonder a clone army of flesh and blood, squishier species was created - the droids were fucking awful at the literally one job they have - the thing they have in the in the name: battle. Sure, a swarm of them can, like, do damage, but it's no thanks to being humanoid and having personality and stuff.

Must say I'm having a lot of fun with this discussion. Your post reminds me of something I remember from one of the Mass Effect EU novels. IIRC the main character, on arriving on the Citadel or the like, in his inner monologue was considering the evolution of the various species. The Asaari, Krogan, Turians, Salarians, Drell and of course, Humans, all evolved separately to be their respective home world's dominant species, and all were bipeds. It was a very interesting thought, though of course it's coming from a universe in which we know other alien life not only exists, but evolved along a similar path to us.

On the basis that, as yet, we're "alone" in the universe without evidence to prove either way, we're the dominant species in our world and it must be said that it must be in no small part down to our biology. Obviously, Homo Sapiens extinguished Neanderthals because of our brain power, but in the grand scheme of things, it's our ability to stand upright while wielding tools, weapons, etc. that made us dominant. We aren't as fast as many quadrupeds, clawed like a bear, furred like...also a bear, nor can we live in water or fly but our form has many advantages over quadrupeds. Birds are also bipedal on the ground and see what they can do with their fore-limbs

The giant mechs have a whole host of other problems beyond just balance. I'm actually sad that my reasoning mind won't let me enjoy true escapism when I see such a thing but since understanding the square-cube law, it's made me find it incredibly hard to suspend disbelief re: giant mechs, kaiju and the like. I suppose they do gain some things...mass being the obvious. But the larger a frame, the more weapons it can carry, the harder the punch it can throw and the heavier plating it can be armoured in.

For humanoid droids of other sorts, I think you're right in that it's playing to audience expectations and perceptions. When creating a machine, there's no real reason to make them human like. The robot in SW EP2 with the multiple arms is something to consider. Why not have that many limbs? Why not have limbs that can weld, cut, stitch or clamp things in lieu of fingers? I think that there's an element of the writers/creators humanity at play here...when we imagine "superhuman" it's always relative to "baseline" human. It's why so many superheroes exist who simply take existing human traits, but to a further level. We lift things, Superman lifts heavier things. We see the visible spectrum, he sees xrays. We run fast, he runs faster.

All that said, there are plenty of examples of creativity when it comes to such things also. Futurama has some incredible robotic personages

 

[BlackBark]

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.

Haha, I can see I'm guilty of trying to fit my argument around my own humanoid image of a cyborg.

Firstly, though, I was only using the replacement limbs as an example, so I'm not suggesting that's necessary to be deemed a cyborg. I do agree that people who've had technology added to them such as your cyberpunk examples, or things like the augmentations from Deus Ex should count, even though they're not a direct replacement. However, if you use that purely as the definition (using technology to enhance your capabilities) then you could argue that using any form of power armour also makes you a cyborg. Is that the point you are making, that armour or other external technology is a kind of sub-category of cybernetics?

However, I still maintain that a cyborg should be a combination of machine and organism, considered as a single entity or being and I think this is a fairly well accepted definition (at least based on my interpretation of the fiction I've seen). Of course, I still think that different people will have a different idea as to what counts as a single entity. I can see your point about the life preservation and that some may then consider that system as part of the creature that relies on it, but again, that was just a single example I was using and I'm not limiting my restrictions to that.

I don't think the definition of a cyborg is as simple as someone that uses technology to enhance themselves, because it is too wide a scope. Therefore, the question becomes where do you draw the line for the definition and I'm sure no matter where you draw it, it will seem arbitrary. That's why I'm just trying to give a rough principle instead of a solid criteria, because I don't think a consensus will be reached on this. I think that if you consider the enhancement as part of the person, then they are a cyborg, but if you think of it as being separate from them, they are not. I would go as far as saying it should be considered a part of their body.

This is where my bias for the human form comes in, I suppose, and I agree that your RoboCop vs Brain Vat is a good counter example, but the problem is the slippery slope to defining everyone as a cyborg.

As a potential counter, what would you say to the idea that the brain in a vat could well be considered as less than the orginal human form, while a cyborg should be an enhancement to the original human form. Of course I realise that you can come up with a case where the brain vat had an advantage, but mainly what I'm asking is do you think this point has a place in the definition of a cyborg?

 

[spartan231490]

It would depend on exactly what the armor thing does, and how integrated the person is with it. A cyborg is part flesh, part machine. In other words, they don't just wear their machinery, it's a part of them, often irrevocably/surgically attached.

 

[titankore]

And a mod deleted the source link, I only added that so I wouldn't have to post all the artwork and other stuff. Though putting the art itself is okay cause it is slightly graphic.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Maybe you can look at Shadowrun for this. The cyborgs or even only the cyber-sams are usually replacing their bodyparts and interior stuff with tech to enhance their abilities.
The real cyborgs in SR (super ultra high tech) are only brains swimming in a stimulating fuild in a tank, which is inside the whole antro-drone but can be put into other drones/vehicles if you've the money, time and tech.

Power armor is just what it says: powered armor. There's a power system somewhere enabling the hydraulics to give you the necessary strength to move the heavy armor.
It's basically the suit form of a tank. Think Space Marines (both Warhammer and SC) or Fallout.

Just judging from the picture i'd go with cyborg. Adding the story you provide, still cyborg. Jeah, her body maybe still inside but is basically useless from what i get. She's akin to a Space Marine Dreadnought and that's a cyborg to me not a power armor.

 

[DoPo]

Your way of thinking is frankly what leads to things like the F-35. It's nice on paper, but in real life, ouchie.

And what is "my way of thinking"? Because I thought it was "we shouldn't make something that looks like a human, instead of something that could be way more efficient". And suddently, it's I am responsible for things looking nice on paper instead of being efficient... Do you even realise how much that doesn't make sense?

 

[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.

Everything except Extremis and Bleeding edge = Power armor. Those = some version of cyborg. I don't think it's that hard actually. I'm not a cyborg when I drive my car, and a guy in a wheelchair isn't, right? And of course neither is a kid with polio in an iron lung.

You're right. My mistake for assuming I knew what an iron lung was. My roommate updated me on that. Sorry about that. I guess in order to be a cyborg, something from you must have been removed and replaced with something artificial. In the case of the OP's character, I'd say it depends on how the suit keeps her alive. If it links up to an artificial organ like with Tony Stark's heart than I'd call her a cyborg. Otherwise, I'd go with power armor.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

'Cyborg' I would imagine given their biological systems are being replaced by machine prothesis.

 

[hermes]

The difference is: you can remove your armor and function properly. A cyborg is someone that has parts of his/her anatomy replaced by machinery, so that he can't function properly without them.

 

[happyninja42]

If she is incapable of living without the suit, and thus is always in the suit I would definitely label her as a cyborg. You might make it be a point of discussion in your story though, to reinforce the point that she can't live without the suit, to explain the definition as cyborg.

This is just random brainstorming, but you might try to expand on the suit a bit more than just "the armor she's wearing so she doesn't die". Perhaps have the suit have an inboard AI that talks to her, sort of like Jarvis for Tony Stark in the Iron Man suit. That way she can have some dialogue options even if she's forced to be alone in some social situations.

Or perhaps have it be that she tinkers with the suit, and has hacked the onboard AI to give it more personality, so she can have a buddy. Or perhaps also she and the AI tinker with the suit to allow her to have more access to various abilities. I mean, if I was stuck in that suit 24/7, I would spend a great deal of my time finding ways to expand my abilities and functionality, if only to stave off boredom. And I don't mean things that are just military/combat in nature. But things like "hey! I've got wifi in here now! I'm totally streaming the Starcraft 2 World Championships!" or "I've found a way to graft wheels onto the suit, so I'm going to go try out some inline roller blading...but on a mecha-scale." Or, "I've learned how to piggy back the sensor package this suit comes with into the civilian bandwidths, and I've been able to coordinate the police search for our target based on the information we have. They've cornered the perp at this address, and are establishing a perimeter. Let's hurry." Things like that. Incorporate the suit into her life, and then ask yourself "how would she deal with this on a day to day basis?" Perhaps do some research on people with prosthetics, and how they learn to incorporate and manage the new equipment into their daily routine, and then adjust that to your story. For humor, provide a downside to some of the tweaks she's done. Like the above mentioned "civilian bandwidth hack" now makes it where she's getting irregular spam chatter about various things like minor traffic violations. "Damnit! 3000 illegal parkings in this city every hour!? Savages! Learn how to park your car properly!!" Etc.


Or, totally ignore everything I've said. It's your story, do whatever you want with it, seriously. I just saw the image, and your short synopsis of her situation, and my brain instantly started brainstorming. I tend to do that a lot, and then posting it.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

In my mind, a cyborg is an organic lifeform that has machinery directly interfaced with some part of their anatomy. Someone with a robotic arm complete with sensor leads tied to nerve endings would be a cyborg; someone with a prosthetic arm that non-invasively sensed muscle movements wouldn't be. Someone with a computerized implant that directly fed into their optic nerve would be a cyborg; someone wearing an Oculus Rift-style headset or a Dragonball Z-style scouter wouldn't be. It's the act of "fusing" that machinery with the underlying biological system that makes the difference to me.

Unless the machinery is somehow integrated into the body, someone who needs power armor to survive a certain environment no more becomes a cyborg than a SCUBA diver becomes a dolphin.

 

[happyninja42]

In my mind, a cyborg is an organic lifeform that has machinery directly interfaced with some part of their anatomy. Someone with a robotic arm complete with sensor leads tied to nerve endings would be a cyborg; someone with a prosthetic arm that non-invasively sensed muscle movements wouldn't be. Someone with a computerized implant that directly fed into their optic nerve would be a cyborg; someone wearing an Oculus Rift-style headset or a Dragonball Z-style scouter wouldn't be. It's the act of "fusing" that machinery with the underlying biological system that makes the difference to me.

Unless the machinery is somehow integrated into the body, someone who needs power armor to survive a certain environment no more becomes a cyborg than a SCUBA diver becomes a dolphin.

I'm pretty sure the OP's described her need for the suit along the lines of Darth Vader, needing the mask to live, not because the environment is hazardous, but because she is incapable of living without the suit, even in a welcoming environment. I could be wrong though, but that was the gist I got of the post.

 

[hermes]

The difference is: you can remove your armor and function properly. A cyborg is someone that has parts of his/her anatomy replaced by machinery, so that he can't function properly without them.

The only area I'm not sure about are medically implanted devices required to sustain life, that don't replace existing organ systems. Does an implanted pacemaker count as cybernetics? I know we'd agree that an artificial heart is. How about an LVAD? External pacemaking and iron lungs seem obviously NOT cybernetic to me, but when the machinery starts to be implanted?

That is a good line in the sand to define a cyborg. An assistance device is not "cybernetic augmentation", because it helps regulate an existing system instead of replacing it: a peacemaker does not make you a cyborg, the same way a pair of glasses doesn't make you a cyborg. Now, replace your heart or your eyes with an artificial equivalent, and we are talking cyborg.
Replaced limbs, or hips or bones are among the closest examples I can think of where the line gets crossed. In that case, there are cyborgs among us! **runs to door**

 

[Vicarious Reality]

Strange how no one has mentioned Ghost in the Shell

Pretty much what you described

Both my grandpa and grandma are cyborgs