Frankenstein or Cyborg?

[ZeroGear]

Hey everyone,
Been a while since I've been on the site, and haven't gotten used to the categories yet.
Anyway, I've got a bit of a finer point that might be an interesting discussion:
Originating back in the 1818 story of Frankenstein, the Modern Prometheus (by Mary Shelly), the monster stitched together out of different body parts lifted from graves has become a staple of Science fiction, sometimes bleeding over to the realm of fantasy if animated via necromancy, or pieced together out of parts not originally human.
That being said, times seem to have changed the way this is implemented in more technologically focussed works. Cyborgs, automatons created by replacing living tissue with metal and circuitry, are a staple of latter works and can, in a sense be seen as an evolution of Shelly's original idea.
As such, I've begun to wonder:
When does the monster stop being a "Frankenstein" (a true misnomer, as Victor Frankenstein was the name of the Scientist and not the monster) and become a Cyborg? And further, when does it stop being a Cyborg and become an Android? Do these terms refer to subgroups of the same type of monster, or are they indeed as distinct from each other as a lion and a tiger? Or has the media been so saturated with variations of these creatures that the lines between the have become blurred to a point beyond recognition? And at what point does one consider such a being no longer "human" and refer to it as a "monster"?
What do you all think?

[JNAProductions]

A Frankenstein-style monster is wholly fleshy. Maybe a few metal bits to hold it together, but functional bits are only flesh.

A Cyborg is not a monster, or at least doesn't have to be. It's part machine, part flesh.

An Android is wholly mechanical, even if it appears human.

And as a cyborg myself, I take offense at being called a monster.

[ZeroGear]

So each term dictates what percentage of it is flesh instead of metal?
Mostly asking because at the base level they seem to be the same to me: something made out of different parts that resembles the human form. Also, most authors that use these beings are asking the readers the question of "what does it mean to be human"?

[Aluminum Man]

Originating back in the 1812 story of Frankenstein, the Modern Prometheus (by Mary Shelly), the monster stitched together out of different body parts lifted from graves has become a staple of Science fiction, sometimes bleeding over to the realm of fantasy if animated via necromancy, or pieced together out of parts not originally human.

Frankenstein was published in 1818. Mary Shelley began work on the novel two years before it was published. Now if you're talking about the setting of the book Frankenstein is a period piece, but it takes place in an unknown year in the 1700s.

[Anymage]

Cyborgs are the odd one out here, because they come from adding mechanical bits to an existing person. Neither Frankenstein's monster nor an android has any choice in whether to be made, any more than a baby has any choice in being born. For cyborgs, the person in question generally has a say in what parts are or are not being added. (While it's possible to cyborg-ize someone without their consent, that involves spending a lot of money to power up somebody who will wake up very pissed at you. Not the brightest move.) Bio-cyborgs who add custom grown bits or symbiotes to themselves are a possibility, but the concept is so tied to technological upgrades that meat-based versions are usually explicitly called out as such.

With that one out of the way, it's easy to separate the one made mostly from reanimated corpse bits (although modern versions will often have technological bits added) from the ones who are entirely fabricated from mechanical parts.

[ZeroGear]

Frankenstein was published in 1818. Mary Shelley began work on the novel two years before it was published. Now if you're talking about the setting of the book Frankenstein is a period piece, but it takes place in an unknown year in the 1700s.

Thank you for correcting me, I accidentally put in the wrong date.
You also bring up a very good point about the time it is set in, as that era didn't have anything close to resembling electronics.
As there have been depictions of Frankenstein's Monster with metal components (Notably some rendition show a metal jaw, clamp hands, or sheetmetal attached to the chest), is it possible that the idea of a cyborg evolved as a response to changing technologies in the time periods?
After all, there are depictions of "monsters" made up of human organs and clockwork, and other variations feature steam powered mechanical limbs. Would these be considered later "Frankenstein Monsters" or early Cyborgs? And where is the pint where one becomes the other?

Cyborgs are the odd one out here, because they come from adding mechanical bits to an existing person. Neither Frankenstein's monster nor an android has any choice in whether to be made, any more than a baby has any choice in being born. For cyborgs, the person in question generally has a say in what parts are or are not being added. (While it's possible to cyborg-ize someone without their consent, that involves spending a lot of money to power up somebody who will wake up very pissed at you. Not the brightest move.) Bio-cyborgs who add custom grown bits or symbiotes to themselves are a possibility, but the concept is so tied to technological upgrades that meat-based versions are usually explicitly called out as such.

With that one out of the way, it's easy to separate the one made mostly from reanimated corpse bits (although modern versions will often have technological bits added) from the ones who are entirely fabricated from mechanical parts.

Excellent points here, though didn't the most famous Cyborg not get a say in this?
If memory serves, Officer Murphy didn't really consent to people adding in robot parts when they turned him into RoboCop. Additionally, much like how the original monster woke up without any idea who he was, it is a common trope to wipe the personality and memories of any unwilling cyborgs to prevent such repercussions.
Plus, there are stories of cyborgs being made out of corpses instead of living beings.
You are right, and make very many good points, so maybe a deeper dive will make those points even clearer.

[Kato]

A Frankenstein-style monster is wholly fleshy. Maybe a few metal bits to hold it together, but functional bits are only flesh.

A Cyborg is not a monster, or at least doesn't have to be. It's part machine, part flesh.

An Android is wholly mechanical, even if it appears human.

And as a cyborg myself, I take offense at being called a monster.

I think this is the most conclusive.
While many seem to not care, the difference between Android and cyborg is quite clear cut. An android is an AI in a human like body, a cyborg is a human mind with more or less replaced body parts.
Frankenstein's monster is the odd one out. I can think of few variations that aren't just copies of the original, so I have a hardish time accepting it as a kind of creature instead of just slight variations of one. It also seems old fashioned because stitching together people is... Odd. Is getting an organ transplant enough?
But I might have missed or forgotten some large part of media with a lot of similar beings.

[ZeroGear]

Is getting an organ transplant enough?

I don't think so. After all, do you consider someone with a prosthetic heart or a robotic arm a cyborg?

The thing is, there have been a lot of discussions on the difference between androids and robots, but none when it comes to the creature Dr. Frankenstein made.
Though, your mention of organ transplants does raise an interesting point:
Mary Shelly wrote the story in an era where internal medicine was only truly getting started. The first organ transplant didn't happen until 1954, almost 150 years after the story was published.
The earliest mention of a Cyborg, at last as I could find, was the 1923 story "The Clockwork Man" by E. V. Olde. Similarly, while basic prosthetic limbs had been around for a long while, the truly mechanical ones you'd recognize today began emerging around 1946 due to the amount of solders injured in the war. Similarly, the first prosthetic organ, a kidney machine invented by Dr. Willem Kolff, didn't appear until 1943.
Would it then be too much of a leap to think that the concepts of these "creations" were created as a response to the evolving technologies and medical practices?
As such, is the concept of an Android created as a response to evolving robotic developments in the same way?

Additionally, if an Android is an AI in a human form, and a Cyborg is a human in a robotic body, what would one call a an AI that has been implanted into a body made up of synthetically created organic matter? How about a human mind that has been digitized and uploaded into a purely mechanical body? Where exactly should we draw that line?
(I'm not being argumentative for arguments sake, discussing this is just really interesting.)

[factotum]

Additionally, if an Android is an AI in a human form, and a Cyborg is a human in a robotic body, what would one call a an AI that has been implanted into a body made up of synthetically created organic matter?

Technically, an android is any artificially created being that looks like a human. That means a synthetically created organic being as well as a robotic one.

[ZeroGear]

Technically, an android is any artificially created being that looks like a human. That means a synthetically created organic being as well as a robotic one.

Does that include clones?
If not, why not?

For reference, there are a few sources that I'm thinking of here, including the resurrection of Commander Shepherd from the Mass Effect series, the reconstruction of LeeLoo from the Fifth Element, the alien host bodies form Avatar, and most of the characters from the Netflix series Altered Carbon.
For a more traditional idea of an AI in an organic body, I point to the Synths from Fallout 4.

[factotum]

Does that include clones?
If not, why not?

I would say not, because a clone is an artificially created *copy* of an existing being, not a creation in and of itself. That's just my feeling on it, though, I'm pretty sure that the strict definition of "android" would also cover clones.

[Brother Oni]

I don't think so. After all, do you consider someone with a prosthetic heart or a robotic arm a cyborg?

I think people would differentiate depending on the level of augmentation and the sophistication of said augmentation.

There's someone with a Google Glass physically attached to his skull (screws and everything) and trying to remove it would cause him significant pain.
There's also someone with sensors implanted under their skin, much like an RFID chip.
People with pacemakers are highly reliant on their device (the prosthetic hearts we currently have are short term solutions before implantation of donor heart) and the newer models have wireless capability.

All of the above have differing levels of invasiveness but in terms of percentage body replacement, are insignificant compared to people with prosthetic limbs.

I would certainly consider someone with the more modern robotic arms with motor control as a cyborg of sorts - see Tilly Lockey; she also received prosthetic arms styled like Battle Angel Alita's Berserker Body arms as a gift recently.

As far as I know, prosthetic legs currently don't have the same level of sophistication as arms, so that's more questionable (personally I wouldn't).

Back on topic, this level of %body replacement has been used in numerous sci-fi game systems and fiction as a way of delineating what is human and what isn't. The original Ghost in the Shell manga goes into this in quite a lot of detail, since the main character, Motoko Kusanagi, is a full body cyborg (only her brain is organic and even that has significant upgrades and implants) and often questions whether she is still human. Some cyborgs in the series don't even look human, but are still counted as a person (the Jameson style cyborg that she arrests in a chapter for example).

Here's a question, expanding on Anymage's point about bio-cyborgs, is an android that use biochips and other biomaterials in its construction, still an android or a Frankenstein's monster? If it's case of the providence of the 'raw' materials, then what if the android parts were 3d printed/vat grown using recycled biological material?

[Kato]

I've had enough debates (more than two) with people insisting any kind of prosthetic makes you a cyborg, or possibly less. I mean, it's not a matter of life and death to me, it just feels weird, but if people want to call themselves cyborgs, it's none of my beeswax.

As for the Android vs cyborg... My very personal line is defined by the intelligence. If it's a human mind uploaded, copied, whatever it's a cyborg (clones don't qualify if they're not augmented), if the intelligence is, well, artificial, then it's an Android. This way it's pretty clear in most cases. (not that this is important until we make huge leaps in technology)

[Yora]

Lots of people have considerable amounts of metal pieces grafted inside their body, some of which even contain electronics, including a number of brain implants. And there's of course working robot hands.

What even is a cyborg anymore?

[Fyraltari]

Clones are normal humans created in vivo/in vitro with an older identical twin. Unless further modified they really don’t belong here.

Androids may have fleshy bits, too. Up to being a robotic brain grafted inside a normal human body.

Humans whose mind were copied into a computer mainframe are A.I. in my book but the line really doesn’t matter at that point.

The Creature in the book Frankenstein isn’t made of grafted reanimated parts it’s more of an homonculus.

Do uplifted animals count as A.I? Depends on wether the individual’s intelligence was designed by a scientist (as in Freefall) or if it can be passed on the offspring (as in Uplift).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

A Frankenstein-style monster is wholly fleshy. Maybe a few metal bits to hold it together, but functional bits are only flesh.

A Cyborg is not a monster, or at least doesn't have to be. It's part machine, part flesh.

An Android is wholly mechanical, even if it appears human.

I'd add that a crucial characteristic of a Frankenstein-style monster is that it is a reanimated creature: that every single piece of it was dead, and that by attaching them back together and applying sufficiently advanced science, it is now living again.

As to the debate on what makes a cyborg a cyborg, IMnpHO, the last word on the subject is Asimov's The Bicentennial Man short(ish) story.

Grey Wolf

[ZeroGear]

Actually, Fyrtelli brings up a good point:
The idea of a Homunculus has been around the literary world as long as the concept of alchemy entered into public consciousness, maybe even before.
As fad as I know, it is artificially created in vats of chemicals rather than being made of parts.
The other term that comes to mind is a “golem”, which existed as far back as the origins ofJewish mythology, though I’d imagine there are significant differences.
Similarly, if we consider that the parts were all dead originally, the process does seem more like scientific necromancy than anything.

Also, I know I’ve referred to the creation of Frankenstein as a “monster”, but that isn’t fully accurate. Originally, the story describes him as being quite benign, and only changed after being rejected time and time again.
While one can say he became a monster over the course of the story, it is doubtful that he was originally created to be one by the Doctor.

[Kato]

I'm not versed enough in Jewish lore to judge but I think golems aren't really 'intelligent', more human shaped machines that fulfilled orders. Of course the line is shady but I'd put them in a very different category.

Of course the basic idea of artificial humans is very old. Many creation myths have humans shaped by god(s) and then given life, so the idea à smart enough man could replicate the process has been common. How smart the resulting homunculus is varies of course.

The bit about the intelligence in Frankenstein always confused me... The monster has a human brain but as far as I know none of its memories or anything. It's its own 'person'. But I guess the idea of the brain being the source of the mind was hardly established back then.

[Anymage]

The earliest golem stories were closer to Frankenstein, where they were created to be almost like a man. But because their creators were imperfect (because only God is perfect), something inevitably wasn't right. Contrast to Shelly's story, where aside from being unsightly the monster started out as a rather decent chap.

Modern golems are basically robots in settings that either don't want to have shiny technological gizmos, or don't want to mix their shiny technology up with their magic too much. As such, magical robots are only slightly more relevant than tech robots are. They can both be made in humanoid forms (as androids), and particularly icky magic robots could be made out of human body parts. But there's a pretty big difference between a D&D flesh golem (a particularly icky magic robot), and even the Halloween versions of Frankenstein (a sentient creature in its own right).

[Fyraltari]

The bit about the intelligence in Frankenstein always confused me... The monster has a human brain but as far as I know none of its memories or anything. It's its own 'person'. But I guess the idea of the brain being the source of the mind was hardly established back then.

No, that's because the whole "made of body parts taken from graves" is an invention of the adaptations, probably due to misunderstanding the line about Victor Frankenstein looting graves to study and experiment (you need body parts to study th ehuman body, and it's easier to cut them open when they're already dead, after all). The creature's brain did not have any memory before his waking up because it was never inside anybody's head before. The Creature is a newborn in an adult body.

Fyrtelli

That's a new one.

the Doctor.

Medicine student who never graduated*.

[ZeroGear]

No, that's because the whole "made of body parts taken from graves" is an invention of the adaptations, probably due to misunderstanding the line about Victor Frankenstein looting graves to study and experiment (you need body parts to study th ehuman body, and it's easier to cut them open when they're already dead, after all). The creature's brain did not have any memory before his waking up because it was never inside anybody's head before. The Creature is a newborn in an adult body.

That...isn't entirely accurate. I read the original story back in college more than 10 yers ago, but I do remember that Victor Frankenstein made a point that the brain he was using belonged to a criminal. So yeah, he may have dug up parts to study, but he also robbed graves for materials, and I think made a significant point about picking parts that weren't significantly rotted.
So yeah, while you are right that the creature was essentially a newborn in an adult body, it always confused me why he had no memories upon his creation.

That's a new one.

Sorry, was typing on my phone at the time and didn't have the option of spellchecking your name.

Medicine student who never graduated*.

Again, it's been a while since I read the source material, so I'm not sure on that. Still, most people call him Dr. Frankenstein because a) it's simpler, and b) it makes him seem more impactful.

[sktarq]

I thinki there is an inherent problem is trying to exactly classify this....
what makes a "vampire" because for every rule there are exceptions in lore and culture
(feeds on blood vs breath vs emotions in the blood, psi, etc etc just to start.)

In terms of very basics I would say a Frankenstein Monster "type" has two very different themes either one of which could be used as a key defining points.

1) science based reanimated dead life-this has as many links to Zombies as Anything.

2) the artificial creation of a person. With social, moral, and spiritual questions derived from that. In this way themes of intelligent AIs (in mainframe, holographic, or android form), Biological DNA tinkering projects, and the like are far more connected.

and this has to do with the fact Adam was character in a story. And the story brought up a lot of themes and ideas that were not directly linked to "What" Adam was.

so the question of "is X more a Frankenstein monster or a Cyborg" probably has as much to do with how it is used and the themes delved into as how it was made.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

what makes a "vampire"

Leaving a watermelon out during a full moon.

No, seriously.

folklore is silent about what they believe about vampire watermelons. Possibly they suck back.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

That...isn't entirely accurate. I read the original story back in college more than 10 yers ago, but I do remember that Victor Frankenstein made a point that the brain he was using belonged to a criminal. So yeah, he may have dug up parts to study, but he also robbed graves for materials, and I think made a significant point about picking parts that weren't significantly rotted.
So yeah, while you are right that the creature was essentially a newborn in an adult body, it always confused me why he had no memories upon his creation.

Are you sure you’re not remembering that from an adaptation? ´Cause in the book Victor makes a point of not describing the process beyond vague allusions to chemicals.

Sorry, was typing on my phone at the time and didn't have the option of spellchecking your name.

Heh, it doesn’t bother me much. I just hope that if I correct people often enough I eventually won’t have to. Also people generally drop the ‘‘ar’’ or switch the the first ‘‘r’’ and the ‘‘y’’.

Again, it's been a while since I read the source material, so I'm not sure on that. Still, most people call him Dr. Frankenstein because a) it's simpler, and b) it makes him seem more impactful.

That neurotic mess couldn’t recognize the Hippocratic Oath if it spit in his face.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That neurotic mess couldn’t recognize the Hippocratic Oath if it spit in his face.

He could be a Doctor in a non-medical discipline. Doctors in Chemistry don't usually need to even hear about the Hippocratic oath.

(Not that even Doctors in medicine take the oath these days anyway)

Hmmm... I wonder if we could track all the "evil mad scientist that calls themselves doctor" trope to Dr. Frankenstein.

Grey Wolf

[hamishspence]

Hmmm... I wonder if we could track all the "evil mad scientist that calls themselves doctor" trope to Dr. Frankenstein.

Grey Wolf

Doctor Faustus was older:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...ist/Literature

[ZeroGear]

Are you sure you’re not remembering that from an adaptation? ´Cause in the book Victor makes a point of not describing the process beyond vague allusions to chemicals.

Just checked the original edition and you are correct. Though, he did mention that he he "collected bones from charnel-houses, and disturbed, with profane fingers, the tremendous secrets of the human frame". The other mentions may have been in a revised edition, though here he is clear that he got his materials (or at least the bones) from graves.
For those of you that don't know, a "Charnel House" is essentially a vault of building that is filled with bones that are found while digging new graves.

That neurotic mess couldn’t recognize the Hippocratic Oath if it spit in his face.

Wrong type of doctor. While you may equate the title of "Doctor" with medicine, the title itself is a descriptor for an education level and not a profession. In the time of Shelly, "Doctor" was more equated with anyone that had an affluent background and managed to complete their scientific education at a college. In his case, I think Victor had a Chemistry, Biology, or Natural Science Doctorate, but I'm not sure.

[Fyraltari]

Victor never graduated, he created the Creature during his university days, then had a nervous breakdown and went back to his family (I can relate) and then plot happened so he never went back to the uni to get any kind of degree or doctorate which is why no-one ever call him ‘‘doctor’’ in the book.
He has the skill set, clearly but none of the recognition. I thought I remembered him studying medicine but I can’t be sure.

As for the collecting bone in a graveyard: That’s one does when when one studies secret medicine practices, just ask the Renaissance-era medical researchers. The Creature is described as being far larger in size than a regular man and extremely handsome (until he moved, the horror stems from a proto-uncanny valley effect) which are both extremely unlikely if the Creature is made of stolen body parts.
Furthermore, Victor’s breakthrough is due to his studying modern sciences in university while having spent his childhood and teenage years reading alchemy books. Homonculus creation being one of the most famous aims of alchemy and the mention of chemicals make it more likely that the Creature was grown.

[ZeroGear]

Again, that may be the case. And the Doctor title may have come as a result of either a later adaptation or to really play into the "mad scientist" theme in the movies, not sure. I'm mostly using it for simplicity's sake to differentiate between Victor and his creation.
Still, victor's qualifications aren't really the topic here, it's the point when one stops thinking of a "monster" as a Frankenstein Creation and begins thinking of it as a "cyborg".
While the electronics of the later era were not around in Shelly's time, later depictions have incorporates various parts of machinery into the body, such as electrodes, sheet metal skin, fully metallic jaws or teeth, and wiring under the skin. In fact the most iconic addition that most post-movie versions share are the two bolts sticking out the base of his neck.
I'm just wondering how much metal needs to be incorporated to shift the idea from Frankenstein creation to full on 'borg, or if the idea of resurrection or life from dead parts is the defining factor.

Edit: as a side note, if you think that collecting all the bones was done for medical practices, where the heck did he get the parts for making the body from? It's not like they had the knowledge to grow tissue in vats at that point, or could even imagine the process of doing so.

[Fyraltari]

Again, that may be the case. And the Doctor title may have come as a result of either a later adaptation or to really play into the "mad scientist" theme in the movies, not sure. I'm mostly using it for simplicity's sake to differentiate between Victor and his creation.

I don’t find ‘‘Victor’’ and ‘‘the Creature’’ to be any more ambiguous than ‘‘Doctor’’ and ‘‘the Monster’’ and they have the advantage of being accurate.

Still, victor's qualifications aren't really the topic here, it's the point when one stops thinking of a "monster" as a Frankenstein Creation and begins thinking of it as a "cyborg".
While the electronics of the later era were not around in Shelly's time, later depictions have incorporates various parts of machinery into the body, such as electrodes, sheet metal skin, fully metallic jaws or teeth, and wiring under the skin. In fact the most iconic addition that most post-movie versions share are the two bolts sticking out the base of his neck.
I'm just wondering how much metal needs to be incorporated to shift the idea from Frankenstein creation to full on 'borg, or if the idea of resurrection or life from dead parts is the defining factor.

I’d say the whole ‘‘back from the dead’’ thing is the defining factor here. A zombie is a zombie, whether it was made with magic or technowizardry.

Edit: as a side note, if you think that collecting all the bones was done for medical practices, where the heck did he get the parts for making the body from? It's not like they had the knowledge to grow tissue in vats at that point, or could even imagine the process of doing so.

Yes they could. Alchemists, the very alchemists whose books Victor grew up reading have done so for centuries.
homonculus.