Saturday, June 6, 2009

Which Came First - Cyborg Or Robot?

This discussion takes place in the context of the acceptance of Establishment Big Bang Cosmology ("Big Bang"), but not on the acceptance of the Rebel Cosmological Counter Context ("Little Bang").

With that out of the way, note that I have discussed the subject and do conclude that our cosmological models indicate that machine forms axiomatically came before biotic forms.

That conclusion was based upon the premise that elements are machine forms rather than being biotic forms.

Elements came "soon" after the Big Bang, beginning during a period of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), according to current cosmological models.

Both simple and complex elements, and the molecules that result from Chemical Bonds between elements, are machine forms in the raw.

They formed the planets, stars, and galaxies which are more of the same (machine forms) only much greater in size, and they have more moving parts.

This machine form largess happened later on in the Big Bang timing sequence.

The biotic forms came much later, after planets had been formed, and after certain conditions arose on certain planets, according to the Big Bang models.

There you have it: Robots, which are machines with no biotic components, came before Cyborgs which have biotic components (Accord).

The next post in this series is here.


  1. I toured your site and specifically want to complement your restraint regarding "Psychotic Sites". So many psychos, so little space. ;-)

    Well, once you get past "any mechanical or electrical device that transmits or modifies energy to perform or assist in the performance of human tasks" it's all up for grabs isn't it?

    Being smitten with the existentialist viewpoint early on I've never held any particular material's driven version of that definition closely. A synapse fit's nicely as well as a wall mounted socket.

    I'd have to break it down between biotic and non-biotic but wouldn't rule out calling the universe a machine that developed biotic components for thought and self-examination. In that regard we probably agree with your synthesis more than not. Man, you're not going to start a debate that way :-) Not with me anyway. I always kind of liked the Gaia model, even when everyone was laughing at it.

    I saw but deliberately ignored your posting referencing Battlestar Galactica. I missed the entire last half of the last season of it and didn't want any spoilers. I have the last half season though (someone I know recoded it for me) and I'm waiting for the DVD to be released/sent. I know how it's gotta' end but I want to see it before I hear about it. I once went until the day before a Super Bowl to know who won the previous Super Bowl. I can enforce self-ignorance with the best of them.

    I'm planning a weekend-, a six-pack, mass quantities of junk food and a marathon. Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica are my top 2 SF shows. I know that the relentless political and totally character driven nature of BSG actually places it well below Bab5 on the SF and sense-of-wonder scale but it's my list, I can put it anywhere I like. I know that's a set-up but be nice :-) The Caprican resistance arc was in-freaking-credible! WoW.

    Don't judge me too harshly Judge.

  2. lottakatz,

    Yes, definitions can control at times.

    But English is so fluid it is difficult to identify the zone where biotic and machine meet up, but go separate ways away from there ...