I think cyborg is a perfectly fine scientific term used in multiple papers, why makes you not like it?
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=rat+...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=cybo...
I think cyborg is a perfectly fine scientific term used in multiple papers, why makes you not like it?
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=rat+...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=cybo...
That many paper titles use it does not mean it's a common scientific term. This is context-dependent, could be ok in an opinion or philosophy paper, but in an experimenal paper about locomotion control via brain-machine interfaces it s just unacceptable imo
Plenty of categories have fuzzy lines. When exactly does a color stop being orange and become red?
If it wouldn't be context dependent I wonder how science got to use the words like "transformer", "quark", "entropy" and so on..
Also
> 'mind control', what is 'mind'
Are you serious? Scientific papers can't talk about "mind" now?