In RPGs like Shadowrun and others, we deal with the concept of the cyborg a lot...part man, part machine.

I understand that there are some people in Europe who have gone so far as to have cameras sugrically mounted on their skulls or LED lights implanted under their skin and then claim that they are cyborgs and whenever someone doesn't like what they have done they are experiencing cyborg discrimination.

But recently I have been studying about cardiac diseases and in my textbook I learned about how a pacemaker is implanted in the chest and basically interfaces directly with the heart via electrical charges to help it beat correctly.

Wouldn't a guy with a pacemaker be considered a cyborg? Considering the depth of implantation and the fact that the pacemaker is governing a key part of his physiology, surely that guy is much more a cyborg than someone who decided to drill a webcam onto his skull that doesn't actually directly interface with his body.

If I were a Shadowrun GM, and someone asked me if bolting a camera to your skull with surgical screws would cost Essence, I would say maybe not, because it's so superficial and it doesn't really interface with your body. If someone asked me if implanting a device that would dictate their heart rhythm would cost Essence, I would say maybe yes.

Depends on your definition.
Technically, somebody with screws through their bones is a cyborg.
If you go really wide with it, tooth fillings already count for this too.

It's almost the same as Bone Lacing, right?

Bye
Thanee

I think one definition I saw said they have non-human implants that they could not live without. Replacement organs or pacemaker? Cyborg. RFID chip under your skin? Attention-seeking.

I don't think it is the official definition, but that's a reasonable place to draw the line. Maybe add the word "extensive" in there somewhere. Darth Vader/Robocop setups should be the ones that count.

sadly my dentist will not go for the Titanium Tooth Lacing I keep asking for....

@Iduno, I would include non-human replacments that tie into my system. I mean I can live without an arm, but if I replace it with sweet bionic arm that ties into my nervous system so I can use it, that seems plenty cyborgy.

crowns, yes.

In the strict definition of the term (a living creature with non-living replacements or augmentations), requiring an artificial pacemaker or even corrective lenses qualifies you as a cyborg.

There was a definition once that I came across that was fairly broad. It said that any organism augmented in its capabilities by an affixed machine was considered a cyborg. Wheelie dogs, by that token, would be considered cyborgs. Wider still in the range, many of us right now could be considered cyborgs simply because we rely upon a smartphone which is with us almost always to augment our memory, our capability to reach out to people, and to pull information from the ether.

A pacemaker, however, is a much more literal implant, and falls under the original 1960's definition of what a cyborg is. The key is biomechatronics. In the case of a pacemaker it has sensors which detect a need for activation, and it acts upon this information. It acts to augment the heart's proper rhythm in a way that requires little intervention. As such, one with a pacemaker is indeed a cyborg.