“赛博格”自20世纪60年代以来逐渐成了学术研究与大众文化中的流行术语，但其内涵却多有含混之处。从其概念谱系来看，克莱恩斯与克莱因发明的“赛博格”以机器化的人为形象基础，但“赛博格”的释义“控制论有机体”却包含了纯粹的机器。哈拉维对“赛博格”进行了后现代哲学的阐释，将“赛博格”升扬为本体论隐喻与反讽的政治神话，衍生出了抽离所指的赛博格知识话语。这两种阐释丰富了赛博格的实体义与隐喻义，但也造成了赛博格意指的混乱。基于维特根斯坦的理论，“赛博格”所表达的是一个游戏化的词汇场域和类聚化的形象群体，它在具体使用中表现为填补型、器置型、代理型和虚拟型这四种实体类型。如果否认其实体义共识，赛博格就可能会随着无边的隐喻而走向混乱。

 “Cyborg” has gradually become a popular term in academic research and popular culture since the 1960s, but its connotation is often ambiguous. From the perspective of its conceptual genealogy, the term “cyborg” invented by Manfred E. Clynes and Nathan S. Kline is based on the image of the mechanized man, but the definition of “cyborg”—“cybernetic organism”— covers the idea of pure machine. Interpreting “cyborg” from the perspective of postmodern philosophy, Donna J. Haraway explicates it as an ontological metaphor and a political myth of irony, producing an intellectual discourse about cyborg that separates the concept from what it originally signifies. These two interpretations enrich the substantive meaning and metaphorical meaning of “cyborg”, but also cause confusion of its signification. According to Wittgenstein’s theory, what “cyborg” expresses is a gamified lexical field and an aggregated image group. It is embodied in four types of entity: the supplementary, the machine-implanted, the agentic, and the virtual model. If a consensus on the substantive meaning of “cyborg” is denied, it may end up in chaos due to the endless metaphors.