| Title |
Robots and cyborgs: to be or to have a body?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Poiesis & Praxis, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10202-012-0107-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emma Palese |
| Abstract |
Starting with service robotics and industrial robotics, this paper aims to suggest philosophical reflections about the relationship between body and machine, between man and technology in our contemporary world. From the massive use of the cell phone to the robots which apparently "feel" and show emotions like humans do. From the wearable exoskeleton to the prototype reproducing the artificial sense of touch, technological progress explodes to the extent of embodying itself in our nakedness. Robotics, indeed, is inspired by biology in order to develop a new kind of technology affecting human life. This is a bio-robotic approach, which is fulfilled in the figure of the cyborg and consequently in the loss of human nature. Today, humans have reached the possibility to modify and create their own body following their personal desires. But what is the limit of this achievement? For this reason, we all must question ourselves whether we have or whether we are a body. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 50% |
| Sweden | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 25 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Researcher | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 15% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 12% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 23% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 April 2022.
All research outputs
#8,475,076
of 25,287,709 outputs
Outputs from Poiesis & Praxis
#10
of 42 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,097
of 171,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Poiesis & Praxis
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,287,709 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one scored the same or higher as 32 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 171,614 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.