Caseorganic at 21:01, 9 May 2010

2010-05-09T21:01:16Z

Caseorganic at 20:59, 9 May 2010

2010-05-09T20:59:25Z

Show changes

Caseorganic: Created page with 'Originally posted on: [http://www.google.com/buzz/dresdencodak/dPdEnP8PBQT/How-do-you-personally-define-prostheses-Do How do you personally define prosthesis?] Aaron Diaz - Buzz…'

2010-05-09T20:51:15Z

Created page with 'Originally posted on: [http://www.google.com/buzz/dresdencodak/dPdEnP8PBQT/How-do-you-personally-define-prostheses-Do How do you personally define prosthesis?] Aaron Diaz - Buzz…'

Show changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:01, 9 May 2010
Line 232:		Line 232:

	Excellent, wonderful.<br />		Excellent, wonderful.<br />
	Justin Toney - And in response to @Aaron Diaz, I would argue that a particular language is technology. The concept of language itself, in the context of a language user, is indistinguishable from the user's capacity to employ language. Language is a natural, biological, human evolutionary trait. French, English, and American Sign Language are examples of technologies used by humans to enhance their natural capabilities. (A small distinction)<br />		*Justin Toney - And in response to @Aaron Diaz, I would argue that a particular language is technology. The concept of language itself, in the context of a language user, is indistinguishable from the user's capacity to employ language. Language is a natural, biological, human evolutionary trait. French, English, and American Sign Language are examples of technologies used by humans to enhance their natural capabilities. (A small distinction)<br />
	Steven Campbell - @Justin Toney: Wouldn't language be different in the sense that it evolved almost without conscious effort? Clearly endeavors to create a global language (like Esperanto) could be considered as attempts at a "prosthetic," but couldn't natural language with its "biological, human evolutionary traits" be separated from those prosthetics which were created with an end in mind?		*Steven Campbell - @Justin Toney: Wouldn't language be different in the sense that it evolved almost without conscious effort? Clearly endeavors to create a global language (like Esperanto) could be considered as attempts at a "prosthetic," but couldn't natural language with its "biological, human evolutionary traits" be separated from those prosthetics which were created with an end in mind?

	When someone went to build the hammer, as cited by many as a tool or prosthetic that hasn't changed, they decided to build something that could achieve a specific task. Language has had natural evolution and although it was CREATED with a purpose, it has not EVOLVED for any reason other than organic reasons, as a creature evolves. And because language has not evolved for any sort of purpose, it is, in my mind, no prosthetic.<br />		When someone went to build the hammer, as cited by many as a tool or prosthetic that hasn't changed, they decided to build something that could achieve a specific task. Language has had natural evolution and although it was CREATED with a purpose, it has not EVOLVED for any reason other than organic reasons, as a creature evolves. And because language has not evolved for any sort of purpose, it is, in my mind, no prosthetic.<br />
	Eric Izzett - Human being are already cyborgs. We have been cyborgs ever since the first caveman picked up a stick and bashed a woolly mammoth over the head with it. Saying that we rely on tools understates the fact of the matter. We have an evolutionary need for tools.		*Eric Izzett - Human being are already cyborgs. We have been cyborgs ever since the first caveman picked up a stick and bashed a woolly mammoth over the head with it. Saying that we rely on tools understates the fact of the matter. We have an evolutionary need for tools.

	Imagine dropping a person off in the middle of a forest and forbidding them the use of any kind of tool (including fire, shelter, hunting utensils, etc). That person would not survive. They could not survive. Without tools, our bodies are almost laughably vulnerable. Regardless of the technological advances that occur within the next century, human beings simply could not be more dependent on 'prostheses' than we already are.		Imagine dropping a person off in the middle of a forest and forbidding them the use of any kind of tool (including fire, shelter, hunting utensils, etc). That person would not survive. They could not survive. Without tools, our bodies are almost laughably vulnerable. Regardless of the technological advances that occur within the next century, human beings simply could not be more dependent on 'prostheses' than we already are.
Line 249:		Line 249:

	@ Eric Izzett, I agree with your point about "humans will always think of themselves as humans." To be human is to be technology-dependent, at least now. But the use of "cyborg" defines it better than its meaning. It's a recent word, used to distinguish between what has become accepted as socially normal tech-dependent and beyond-normal (or specifically computer-based) tech-dependent. Where we as a community of language-users draw the line for "cyborg" is where we draw the line for 'acceptable' technology.		@ Eric Izzett, I agree with your point about "humans will always think of themselves as humans." To be human is to be technology-dependent, at least now. But the use of "cyborg" defines it better than its meaning. It's a recent word, used to distinguish between what has become accepted as socially normal tech-dependent and beyond-normal (or specifically computer-based) tech-dependent. Where we as a community of language-users draw the line for "cyborg" is where we draw the line for 'acceptable' technology.
	Richard Stubbs - Personally, my definition is that prosthetics replicate a biological function that would otherwise be present. This means artificial limbs, pacemakers etc. Things which augment or enhance existing functions are not. (i.e. glasses would be no use to a blind person)		*Richard Stubbs - Personally, my definition is that prosthetics replicate a biological function that would otherwise be present. This means artificial limbs, pacemakers etc. Things which augment or enhance existing functions are not. (i.e. glasses would be no use to a blind person)
	Peter da Silva - @Richard: So is my knee brace a prosthesis or a tool?		*Peter da Silva - @Richard: So is my knee brace a prosthesis or a tool?

	What about implantable cardioverter-defibrillators?		What about implantable cardioverter-defibrillators?
Line 262:		Line 262:
	Knee brace: if it is to improve existing knee performance, tool. If knee is significantly less operable without it, prosthetic (I would imagine a more permanent 'brace' in this case, e.g. reinforcing struts used in partial knee replacement surgery)		Knee brace: if it is to improve existing knee performance, tool. If knee is significantly less operable without it, prosthetic (I would imagine a more permanent 'brace' in this case, e.g. reinforcing struts used in partial knee replacement surgery)
	ICDs however are more difficult, but my opinion is they are prostheses since their presence corrects irregular biological functions.		ICDs however are more difficult, but my opinion is they are prostheses since their presence corrects irregular biological functions.
	Peter da Silva - @Richard - I can technically walk without it, but if I don't wear the brace I'm in significant pain after walking even a short distance.		*Peter da Silva - @Richard - I can technically walk without it, but if I don't wear the brace I'm in significant pain after walking even a short distance.
	Mr. Aswell - A prosthesis is when an experienced writer puts forward an idea to the intellectual community.. No wait . . . that's a Pro's Thesis.		*Mr. Aswell - A prosthesis is when an experienced writer puts forward an idea to the intellectual community.. No wait . . . that's a Pro's Thesis.

	@ Peter. Your knee brace is something in-between. Whereas a total or partial knee replacement would be a prosthesis, and a knee pad is a tool used to prevent injury, your knee brace is a prosthetic tool used to support the operation of an organic device that has suffered damage, but is not out of order to the extent that it would require replacement. As for breast implants, those are accessorial prostheses used by tools.		@ Peter. Your knee brace is something in-between. Whereas a total or partial knee replacement would be a prosthesis, and a knee pad is a tool used to prevent injury, your knee brace is a prosthetic tool used to support the operation of an organic device that has suffered damage, but is not out of order to the extent that it would require replacement. As for breast implants, those are accessorial prostheses used by tools.
	S Hagan - The human form is a recognizeable chassis. Remove a limb, and the chassis is no longer whole.		*S Hagan - The human form is a recognizeable chassis. Remove a limb, and the chassis is no longer whole.

	In my opinion, a prosthetic is something that replaces a part that is missing from the standard human chassis, be this a titanium hip replacement, or a wooden leg, or one of those nice scottish hands with the replaceable, mass produced finger bits.		In my opinion, a prosthetic is something that replaces a part that is missing from the standard human chassis, be this a titanium hip replacement, or a wooden leg, or one of those nice scottish hands with the replaceable, mass produced finger bits.
Line 280:		Line 280:

	I'm not sure that it's possible to define a breast implant as "not prosthetic", because the same implant may be used in cosmetic surgery or reconstructive surgery. There's a substantial gray area.		I'm not sure that it's possible to define a breast implant as "not prosthetic", because the same implant may be used in cosmetic surgery or reconstructive surgery. There's a substantial gray area.
	Richard Stubbs - Yeah, I think I probably agree with those points. Perhaps it is better to define them by purpose rather than function		*Richard Stubbs - Yeah, I think I probably agree with those points. Perhaps it is better to define them by purpose rather than function

	@S Hagan Interesting you should mention custom parts; some are possible now: http://www.profeng.com/archive/2010/2302/23020057.htm		@S Hagan Interesting you should mention custom parts; some are possible now: http://www.profeng.com/archive/2010/2302/23020057.htm
	Peter da Silva - On the other hand, prosthetics and cybernetics provide rich metaphors. I have in the past referred to my PDA as "the third lobe of my brain", and now that I think of it the term "prosthetic memory" is not too strained a metaphor. :)		*Peter da Silva - On the other hand, prosthetics and cybernetics provide rich metaphors. I have in the past referred to my PDA as "the third lobe of my brain", and now that I think of it the term "prosthetic memory" is not too strained a metaphor. :)
	S Hagan - @peter da silva - While I agree- the surgery for reconstruction wouldn't be prosthetic, the plastic and metal bits used to replace bone tissue removed might be. Sorry, should have been clearer.		*S Hagan - @peter da silva - While I agree- the surgery for reconstruction wouldn't be prosthetic, the plastic and metal bits used to replace bone tissue removed might be. Sorry, should have been clearer.

	@richard Stubbs - Though I can't provide a link at the moment, consider this - High Resolution 3d scans of bone tissue + rapid prototyping technology + advanced robosurgery techniques = A new bone replacement, EXACTLY like the old one (if your scan is on file), printed while u wait, and attached via microsurgery. With the right prototyper, or even a CNC machine, imagine a perfect fit in carbon fiber or titanium. <br />		@richard Stubbs - Though I can't provide a link at the moment, consider this - High Resolution 3d scans of bone tissue + rapid prototyping technology + advanced robosurgery techniques = A new bone replacement, EXACTLY like the old one (if your scan is on file), printed while u wait, and attached via microsurgery. With the right prototyper, or even a CNC machine, imagine a perfect fit in carbon fiber or titanium. <br />
	andrew hudson - It may be too late to try and insert a new point into this discussion, but we'll see...		*andrew hudson - It may be too late to try and insert a new point into this discussion, but we'll see...

	I find that when "defining" something that most of us would agree is a human creation or invention, it's easiest to look at two fundamental things that make up our definition: Intent and Perception. A false leg would indeed be a prosthesis, because it is intended AND perceived as such; specifically, intended and perceived as an extension of the body, replacing a leg that is no longer there.		I find that when "defining" something that most of us would agree is a human creation or invention, it's easiest to look at two fundamental things that make up our definition: Intent and Perception. A false leg would indeed be a prosthesis, because it is intended AND perceived as such; specifically, intended and perceived as an extension of the body, replacing a leg that is no longer there.

Google Buzz Discussion on Prosthesis - Revision history

Caseorganic at 21:01, 9 May 2010

Caseorganic at 20:59, 9 May 2010

Caseorganic: Created page with 'Originally posted on: [http://www.google.com/buzz/dresdencodak/dPdEnP8PBQT/How-do-you-personally-define-prostheses-Do How do you personally define prosthesis?] Aaron Diaz - Buzz…'