Do you know the definition of the auxiliary verb “might”? ’Cause that usually tends to make things everything but “clear”.
That would entirely depend on the definition the world in question gives for the two.
There may be none and there may be huge, because there are many definitions of word "cyborg". For example character played by Arnold Schwarzenegger was called cyborg and it didn't have any human parts other than skin. So I avoid this term when I talk about people with augmentations.
Could you call someone cyborg for replacing his arm or leg he lost in war or a car accident? On near full body transformation I could agree with you tho.
Actually you can. Even blind people with electronic devices that allow them to "see" are called cyborgs. And I'm talking here about real life.
"The beginning of Cyborg creation began when human-computer interaction began."
Problem with this term aren't people that has minor augmentations, but robots that have some human parts.
Nah I don't see things that way. Small organ transplant or augmentations that help saving lives is natural thing. But if you choose to augment yourself with new legs and arms or eye balls? then I guess you slowly become something else.. its called psycho
Nah, you just opened the pandora's box on terms that aren't arguably defined.
I would presume that the only real difference between a cyborg and an augmented person would automatically be the fact that it's not implied that a cyborg needs to start off as a person.
Unless of course you have AIs sophisticated enough to be persons. Then you're just running in circles trying to define a difference.
Nah I don't see things that way. Small organ transplant or augmentations that help saving lives is natural thing. But if you choose to augment yourself with new legs and arms or eye balls? then I guess you slowly become something else.. its called psycho
Well, I'm talking about one of 'official definitions'. I don't like this term and avoid it because everyone has different definition of it.
This is usually main theme of novels about cyborgs.
The description says 'might' yet in the trailer we see that she joined the squad. So it is in fact quite clear. Not that hard to understand.
We can’t be sure that it’s her. The “It was all just a simulation” possibility has not been discredited, scar or no. Why would they leave in that ambiguity in the first place if this was decidedly the case?
The main catch is usually either that the author adamantly refuses to outright state whether or not the AI has a personality in order to create a philosophical conflict, which is the good optionThis is usually main theme of novels about cyborgs.
Or, they have or have not, which is decided, but you have idiots arguing over it, which is the political, bad option
Possibly because this particular situation was one of many. Not every recruitment case goes through exactly like this, hence the "might".
Yet the same woman has the exact same scar she got by that bullet in the trailer. Not sure why they didn't "fix" it, but if she hadn't that scar that would be another thing. An I don't understand what you mean by " simulation". Pretty sure it was an incident where she went psycho, the psycho squad stepped in and recruited her.
There are full rules on therapy and how to regain humanity in 2020 (expensive and time consuming) so by that a full borg could have parts replaced with biotech or vat grown parts andd there you go, recruit away since she isnt over the edge anymore.
If they removed the scar in the teaser it would not be as obvious it was her.
If they removed the scar in the teaser it would not be as obvious it was her.