“The conceptual cyborg does not have to rely on physical augmentations or the literal fusion of man and machine to achieve its status as a cyborg—it is cybernetic not in its physicality but in its relationships with cybernetics. Instead, the conceptual cyborg continues the trajectory of cyborgian human advancement by linking man and machine through ideas, digital representations, and digitally embodied extensions of the human within digital spaces” (4)

With this, he goes on to explain that with today’s seamless technology, the digital world is no longer separate from the ‘real’, physical world. As a matter of fact, if everyday technology, such as cellphones, can interact with the ‘real’ world, then why cannot we bring the ‘real’ to the digital space? (9) The same can therefore be applied to the concept of cyborg. To think of the latter as merely a fusion of human and technology reinforces a binary approach, which defeats the whole purpose of the player as a posthuman subject. Indeed, to think of the cyborg as an enhancement of the human is a rather transhumanist approach. On the other hand,

“If we recall that Hayles describes the cyborg as that which exists to tear down or complicate traditional boundaries (How 84), one must consider that dividing the player-as-cyborg into cyborg and non-cyborg simultaneously presents a paradox in the existence of the cyborg […] It stands to reason that for the cyborg to exist in its truest sense, there should be no division present between the player and the avatar.” (Rakes 2016, 27)

In embracing the idea of “a symbiotic, cyborgian whole” (Rakes 2016, 15), a oneness with the digital, the player is already letting go of traditional boundaries and becoming a posthuman subject. As such, in the virtual world, this consists of the first step towards defamiliarization.