I get the feeling from some of the discussion so far that people think there is a being called a "cyborg"—like maybe someone with a titanium knee or an implanted chip—and that such beings will attend and/or be talked about at CyborgCamp.

In my view, we are all cyborgs. I get to this view by not focusing on the (construct) of the bounded self, but instead on the interconnections that flow through us, into and out of machines and others. You are reading my cyborg mind right now.

I would absolutely agree with the second type of definition Nate, and from what I've read of Amber's work (including her thesis) cyborg antropology defines the cyborg in this way. I think a big part of the positive potential inherent in CyborgCamp is the ability to educate people as to this less common definition.

I think we should put a little bit of emphasis on the 'abstract cyborg'. Robocop is a bit too obvious, we don't have much more to say there... but what about a person who has powers of information and communication extended by technology? We're all a little bit cyborg by this soft kind of definition, and I think this camp is about recognizing those subtle cyborginesses and celebrating them.

I agree with Chris... and Nate. Why not cover both? Let's face it, Cyborgs are sexy! I'm interested in hearing about those who's abilities are extended by technology whether implanted or external.

I'm also curious about the idea of the internal (implanted) person becoming far superior to the organic person. Will there be a time when those who cannot afford this will become a lower class like the mutants in Blade Runner? OK, I'm getting a bit scifi but we all know that stuff *never* comes true, right?

Hm, I thought Chris and I were pretty much describing the same thing ;) Maybe people are confusing my first paragraph with how I think about cyborgs, which is in my second paragraph ;) Regardless, I think we should approach cyborgs from as many viewpoints as possible.

Responding to @Nate Angell & @Chris Pitzer: If we want to consider this from POV of human/machine enhancements/interactions, how far do we want to travel in the way-back machine? e.g. digital technologies of communication and information retrieval's precedents in microfilm, telephony, the post, print on paper, vellum mss, wetware-predominant social networks (by comparison ;-) )... I'm also wondering to what degree we can entertain any technology that enhances - or at least amplifies, for better or worse, human performance - my personal fave is the automobile. Also, can other organisms incorporate into this model of the cyborg, like the unit of horse/equipage/rider (Way before Clynes & Kline's Rosie the rat)?

PJ, I wouldn't want to put any preconceived boundaries around our idea of the cyborg. Let's go all the way back, if we find ourselves there. As for other organisms: to me, our working idea of the "human" is itself the product of a cyborg machine that geared up in the 18th century and is maybe now beginning to show signs of wear. Breaking it down to "horse", "equipage" and "rider" doesn't go far enough. What of the gait, domestication and the ride?

Go back further: what about language and the substrate it offers for all the mods that follow?

Language itself is a cybernetic machine, brought to you by the larynx, the chisel, air, fright and drums.

So I see how any instrumentation (laptop, hammer, language, etc) whether physical or abstract can be considered a cyborg trait.... the problem is, I don't think this definition is very helpful outside the philosophical realm. It puts almost everything on the planet into the cyborg definition; wasps (clay into nest), programmers (laptops), beavers (dams), etc. Sure - we are all taking advantage of the world around us to extend ourselves... fine. You can make a cool philosophical point there - and that philosophical point is part of what cyborgcamp should be about.....

But there is a second definition we should consider. Some kind of definition that singles out the fringe cases -- where an individual or group embraces a cyborgian possibility far beyond the norm. There is something special here we should try to learn from.

I think a metaphor can be made here with art. I could argue that everyone is an artist - but there are some people out there who are such strong artists that we can learn really special things from them.

Thoughts?

Chris, I agree that the event will be far more productive to the degree that we move into the concrete. Perhaps the distinction is one of time... if we're generally accepting that humans have long had this tendency toward cyborg symbiosis with tools - using any- and everything that is available to us that our imaginations can tailor to the task (with an awareness that tool-use itself is not exclusive to H. sapiens ;-) ) - this ought to give us the ground upon which we can explore cyborgs, proto-cyborgs, contingent cyborg formations/couplings, what have you, that will in turn enable us to track otherwise unconsidered emergent developments. I mean, why meet if we can't talk about the cool new toys?

As for your analogy with artists and the focus those whose work shows extraordinary accomplishment or innovation... I can second that with examples from haute couture and automotive design. The threads you see on the runway, or the concept car at the auto show, may not be workable in real-world performance, but you know at the very least that both aesthetic and functional elements from these prototypes will make their way into the mass market.

Back to cyborgs: One professor in Reading implants himself with an RFID, and years later, businessmen in Mexico are doing the same as a security measure in case of kidnapping. (While nursing home residents in Florida are, for the moment, spared the ethical dilemma of involuntary arphid tagging.)

OK. I need to tag out (hehe) - next?

Chris/PJ: I totally agree we should have focus on the concrete. It will be way sexy ;)

But to me, the value of thinking through everything as cyborg is a concrete practice—another tool—that enables us to break down/through cultural givens: human, machine, self, etc to see new emerging patterns. Enforcing the human/cyborg divide romanticizes (or to use a $7 word, reifies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(Marxism)) both.

Let's do both ;)

Wow. That's the first time in months I've seen "reifies" used correctly. Alternately, introducing this term shows us just how we're really treading water with the ontology of "cyborg." Speaking for myself: while I can philosophically understand cyborg as being one of manifold ways to qualify, or even to describe, "human," I still have to work with people who insist on marking this distinction (even while they acknowledge Derrida's admonitions in the same breath. My colleagues in the English department all have great sets of lungs). If you have to work with people who do this as well (and don't we all at some point?), or at the very least have spent quality time in a culture that so distinguishes (resistance is futile), this awareness informs the connotative field of "cyborg." (IOW: whoops, I thought it again!)

Now, how do we deal with this?

I guess I believe in ways of looking at things more than in things ;) I'm willing to collaborate on a session at CyborgCamp that addresses this issue...as long as it doesn't conflict with getting my chip implant ;)

So we're not looking for a prototype... we're looking for a new set of rules. Less "what is a cyborg" and more "what does a cyborg do"... right?

This seems to be just a classic case of theory vs. praxis. I don't see why both can't be addressed, although how may fall along session or workshop lines.

Chris: If "what does a cyborg do?" is insufficient, there are also "what can a cyborg do?", "what's a cyborg liable to do?" and "wtf is that cyborg doing?" ;-)

Nate: can you perhaps reschedule your chip implant so that we all can watch the procedure live? :-P

ok - here's a wonkie idea. Feel free to shoot me down.

What if we define 'cyborgs' as outliers? Society is at a given technology level, and then someone achieves a new, higher level. That person is a cyborg. Genghis Kahn was a cyborg for his use of the sturrup, which let his armies fire arrows from horseback.

The prevalent technology of today is the computer. Computers are really good at working fast and communicating over long distances, thus our current definition of 'cyborg' is one who compresses time and space...

What about the next level of technology - it might have less to do with time and space and more to do with nano-machinery or some other technology. Our definition should be able to change over time.

So - cyborgs as those among us embracing, and taking advantage from, new technologies. What do you think?

Enjoying this discussion too much to let it lie ;)

I don't feel like we need a hard definition for "cyborg" to have a good camp, quite the opposite. While I'm very interested in the outliers, or what emerging cyborgs or cyborg practices there might be, I'm also interested in what descriptions/explanations we can come up with for contemporary culture by viewing it through a "cyborg" lens, where we don't identify cyborgs, but think about how our parts are participating in cybernetic systems that don't have "human" and "cyborg" actors.

PJ, for me, theory IS a praxis ;) Keeping these two fields separate (and in anglo-america esp, valuing praxis over theory) is another "reification" I'd sooner leave behind.

Well ... OK ... now I'm really starting to think of myself as a reluctant cyborg. I went to the Wikipedia entry and followed the link to Brian Eno (http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/eno1.html). I must confess as a long-time devotee of computer music, I have only heard briefly of Brian Eno and have *never* experienced his music. I'll obviously need to rectify the latter, but as a computer musician, I would hate to see cyborgcamp turn into a computer music camp -- there are enough of us to have our *own* camp, dagnabbit!

So ... call me a reluctant cyborg ... a Luddite who earns a living as a mathematician and computer scientist and who is starting to wonder if there really *is* a red pill.

znmeb! You have lot's of amazing Eno to enjoy! He doesn't limit himself to music, (albeit that his far stronger suit) but does millions of generative "paintings":
http://bit.ly/appleno

Let's get him for CyborgCamp! C'mon!

Eno is completely relevant, due to his constant career-spanning exploration of "upcoming" media. Cyborg doesn't mean "to use a computer," but to have a relationship with electronic or mechanical devices. In the latter case, Eno has consistently broke new ground, from his place as "non-musician" in Roxy Music up to the alternative means of distribution for his and David Byrne's new album.

Tyler Sticka: "Cyborg doesn't mean "to use a computer," but to have a relationship with electronic or mechanical devices."

Ah ... aside from leaving out "symbiotic", very true. :) So ... just as the centaur myth arose from seeing a rider and a horse in a symbiotic relationship, the "cyborg myth" will arise from people seeing humans in a symbiotic relationship with, say, a computer?

I'll have to go read Amber's thesis, but I guess I don't think a human-cell phone relationship is as convincing to me an example of a "cyborg" as, say, the relationship of John McCarthy (Lisp), John Backus, et. al., (FORTRAN), or Matz (Ruby) with a computer. Or, even better, John von Neumann with the vacuum tubes that *became* the computer!

After all, in a true "symbiotic" relationship, *both* partners must benefit. What does the cell phone get out of the deal, as opposed to what the computer got out of the deal from McCarthy, Backus, Matz and von Neumann? Or what the synthesizer got out of the deal from Walter/Wendy Carlos?

Although I wasn't the one to bring up the cell phone as an example, and although I can't find more than a minority of definitions of the term that mention symbiosis as a requirement, one could argue that the cell phone is gaining its very existence through our usage of it... but then we get into chicken and egg discussions.

While symbiosis does not appear to be a requirement, typically it is assumed that the artificial systems are augmenting, complimenting or entirely replacing a typically natural system. This seems more than an adequate metaphor (though not necessarily more than that) for our modern day interactions with and usage of machines/computers/etc.