Location: Sarah Connor Chronicles: Season 2 Predictions and Plot Danglers

Discussion: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltranReported This is a featured thread

Showing 41 - 60 of 142  |  Show  posts at a time
Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next > Last
jasonosborne79
jasonosborne79
40. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 6 2008, 7:02 PM EST | Post edited: Feb 6 2008, 7:02 PM EST
"Regarding the theory that Cameron must make herself because she can't self terminate by changing the timeline so she is never created. This is a faulty argument because in T2, Arnold does exactly that. He helps Sarah and John in their attempt to prevent Judgement Day and remove Skynet from the timeline without concern that this counts as self terminating himself. Also, he allows John to lower himself into the molten steel. What defines self termination is obviously a philosophical issue left to humans. Termihnators obviously refer to self termination as literally and directly causing oneself to no longer function. Terminators can allow others or events to cause termination."
Except, if that were the case, then all the events would've instantaneously ceased to exist and they didn't. So, we're dealing with parallel universes. The Terminator from T2 realized that was the case and had himself destroyed because he didn't want to risk being captured and his technology used to create Skynet.
0  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    

Xenomorphine
41. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 6 2008, 7:35 PM EST | Post edited: Feb 6 2008, 7:35 PM EST
"I'm not so sure about that. I could see the T-1000 seeing the world that way, but I'm not so sure about Cameron. We see an HUD, but not the person viewing it."
That IS what's controlling it. :)

Termiantors a very functional, very straight-forward machines. They can philosophise, to a DEGREE, but are still no more capable of emoting than your toaster. Remember what the machines stated in the second and third films: They do NOT care. They have NO motyivation. they're simply following instructions and adhering to mission parameters.

All this stuff about Cameron being 'human' belongs in places like 'Battlestar Galactica', where they don't think through what Artificial Intelligence actually is. :)
0  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
sidspappy
sidspappy
42. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 6 2008, 7:58 PM EST | Post edited: Feb 6 2008, 7:58 PM EST
"Termiantors a very functional, very straight-forward machines. They can philosophise, to a DEGREE, but are still no more capable of emoting than your toaster. Remember what the machines stated in the second and third films: They do NOT care. They have NO motyivation. they're simply following instructions and adhering to mission parameters.

All this stuff about Cameron being 'human' belongs in places like 'Battlestar Galactica', where they don't think through what Artificial Intelligence actually is. :)"
I think your definition is a bit too narrow. Perhaps your garden-variety Terminator will never develop true feelings, but all signs point to Cameron being "different." How much so remains to be seen, yet with her expression at the end of Heavy Metal, we are getting hints that she is perhaps progressing beyond her basic programming - developing a true consciousness, with the requisite evaluation of her environment and her place in it.

I'm not saying Cameron is a weepy, emo cyborg. At this point, she truly doesn't care about things. She knows she is programmed for a specific mission. Yet, her confusion and attempts at understanding why she doesn't "get it," shows she may be growing in ways her creators may not have anticipated.
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    

Shrapnel20
43. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 6 2008, 8:20 PM EST | Post edited: Feb 6 2008, 8:20 PM EST
"I think your definition is a bit too narrow. Perhaps your garden-variety Terminator will never develop true feelings, but all signs point to Cameron being "different." How much so remains to be seen, yet with her expression at the end of Heavy Metal, we are getting hints that she is perhaps progressing beyond her basic programming - developing a true consciousness, with the requisite evaluation of her environment and her place in it.

I'm not saying Cameron is a weepy, emo cyborg. At this point, she truly doesn't care about things. She knows she is programmed for a specific mission. Yet, her confusion and attempts at understanding why she doesn't "get it," shows she may be growing in ways her creators may not have anticipated."
I don't think people should read too much into Cameron's expression of emotion. Remember this is a fictional show made by people who are not much different then us in that they speculate how a Terminator should react. This action by Cameron could merely be poor acting or poor direction and have nothing to do with the direction of the show.
0  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    

Xenomorphine
44. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 6 2008, 8:22 PM EST | Post edited: Feb 6 2008, 8:22 PM EST
Her MODEL is different. I think that anyone who genuinely believs it goes further than that, is reading things into it which jsut aren't there, in my view. :)

So far, she has not demonstrated capabilities above and beyond any of the other Terminators, who also used 'expressions' for the sake of illusion. Just look at the T-X. Defaulted to displaying 'orgasmic' when near a crucial goal, but was as emotionless as they come.

There's no reason for this one to develop emotions. They'd get in the way. All she'd be is a female version of Data, from 'Star Trek', which would be very unintereresting.
Do you find this valuable?    
sidspappy
sidspappy
45. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 6 2008, 8:45 PM EST | Post edited: Feb 6 2008, 8:45 PM EST
"Her MODEL is different. I think that anyone who genuinely believs it goes further than that, is reading things into it which jsut aren't there, in my view. :)

So far, she has not demonstrated capabilities above and beyond any of the other Terminators, who also used 'expressions' for the sake of illusion. Just look at the T-X. Defaulted to displaying 'orgasmic' when near a crucial goal, but was as emotionless as they come.

There's no reason for this one to develop emotions. They'd get in the way. All she'd be is a female version of Data, from 'Star Trek', which would be very unintereresting."
Okay, fair enough. How do you propose to expand on her character then? Let's be realistic - Cameron is mainly here to further a sexual subtext, much like later Star Trek series incarnations (Seven of Nine, T'Pol). The story could have just as easily employed a male Terminator in the Schwarzenegger mold. Would that have been interesting?

Cameron HAS to grow as an interesting character. This whole series is built on a more emotional, deeper canvas than the movies ever were. Forward character development is a necessity, or the show will stagnate.

I think the show is setting us up for Cameron to develop as a "human." How it will fit into the overall plot, I can't say. But in my view, this is their ultimate goal.
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    

Shrapnel20
46. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 6 2008, 9:18 PM EST | Post edited: Feb 6 2008, 9:18 PM EST
"Okay, fair enough. How do you propose to expand on her character then? Let's be realistic - Cameron is mainly here to further a sexual subtext, much like later Star Trek series incarnations (Seven of Nine, T'Pol). The story could have just as easily employed a male Terminator in the Schwarzenegger mold. Would that have been interesting?

Cameron HAS to grow as an interesting character. This whole series is built on a more emotional, deeper canvas than the movies ever were. Forward character development is a necessity, or the show will stagnate.

I think the show is setting us up for Cameron to develop as a "human." How it will fit into the overall plot, I can't say. But in my view, this is their ultimate goal."
If you are right, that will ruin what makes Terminator so cool and I will stop watching.
1  out of 5 found this valuable. Do you?    

Xenomorphine
47. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 6 2008, 9:21 PM EST | Post edited: Feb 6 2008, 9:21 PM EST
You don't develop Terminators. Keeping them as they are, is their strength. Giving them humanity turns them either into Data or the new Cylons.

Neither of which is anywhere near as iconic as Terminators are. :)

What should be developed are the human characters. Developing for the sake of it, is going to paint you into corners.
0  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    

Xenomorphine
48. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 6 2008, 9:23 PM EST | Post edited: Feb 6 2008, 9:23 PM EST
"This whole series is built on a more emotional, deeper canvas than the movies ever were."
Also, must comment on this. I watched the second film, earlier on, for the first time in ages. It had many times more emotional development in it, than this show has, so far, been able to portray.
Do you find this valuable?    

Shrapnel20
49. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 6 2008, 9:33 PM EST | Post edited: Feb 6 2008, 9:33 PM EST
"You don't develop Terminators. Keeping them as they are, is their strength. Giving them humanity turns them either into Data or the new Cylons.

Neither of which is anywhere near as iconic as Terminators are. :)

What should be developed are the human characters. Developing for the sake of it, is going to paint you into corners."
YES! You said it best. Remember this show is called Terminator, but the Terminators were never the main characters. It was more about the struggle and lives of the human characters like in the first movie. The Terminator only got a bigger part in the second movie because Arnold became more famous.
0  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    

Xenomorphine
50. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 6 2008, 10:06 PM EST | Post edited: Feb 6 2008, 10:06 PM EST
"YES! You said it best. Remember this show is called Terminator, but the Terminators were never the main characters. It was more about the struggle and lives of the human characters like in the first movie. The Terminator only got a bigger part in the second movie because Arnold became more famous."
It's best seen in the same way as the 'Alien' and 'Predator' film creatures. :) Terminators are BETTER when they're kept mysterious and machine-like. Attempts to humanise and make them 'relateable' end up divorcing them from the very qualities which made them so cionic.
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
MutantEnemy
MutantEnemy
51. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 6 2008, 11:08 PM EST | Post edited: Feb 6 2008, 11:08 PM EST
"What should be developed are the human characters. Developing for the sake of it, is going to paint you into corners."
I agree with this, seeing as Cameron's primary mission objective is to protect John. To learn more about humanity in the quiet moments between doing her job is understandable-- re: T2 John teaching the T-800 slang in the truck.

Don't just make Cameron a cyborg that presents a completely human personality- that would both detract from what she is, and remove the comedic usage of her lack of human people skills.
3  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    

superbovine
52. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 7 2008, 2:20 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 7 2008, 2:20 AM EST
"Actually it's the relentless, unemotional, single-mindedness that makes the Terminator's so cool. The fact that they are not human, yet so driven they seem unstoppable. I've only watched one episode of this show, so I admit I need to give it more of a chance (and I will), but I'm not impressed with Cameron so far. She looked like she got her butt kicked by the Terminator who stole the coltran. He however was the kind of Terminator I know and love from the movies. That's what I'm hoping to see in this series. I don't want to see some second-rate Lego's Mindstorm robot get in touch with her inner feelings."
You are correct the terminator is a rentless unemotional machine killing machine. However, the writers, contrast that alluding to some humanity or subversely hint at with Cameron. I really doubt writers would let the main character just be a normal Terminator. Although, I cannot tell you what you enjoy about a character, it is very subjective.
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
t5000
t5000
53. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 7 2008, 3:03 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 7 2008, 3:03 AM EST
Well she could use the bar to make repairs on herself.....
or since it is so tough, make a weapon with it!
I liked episode 4 , john acted more like he should, and good action and some things explained.
right now it is best show on tv even with its faults.
Do you find this valuable?    
ANTIcarrot
ANTIcarrot
54. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 7 2008, 8:03 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 7 2008, 8:03 AM EST
Cameron is probably a fixed character. Like the sage old man in the film Karate Kid. We don't learn about such characters by watching them change, but by watching other people's perceptions of them change. Part of Cameron's job is to fool humans into thinking she's one of them. She probably takes it as seriously as any other part of her job. Hence she may start to act more and more human. But she'll probably be able to turn the acting off any time she decides she should.

The tricky thing is that a better understanding of human emotion might make her less and less willing to turn her own emotions (real or simulated) off. After watching Sarah repeatedly deal with situations without killing people (and knowing that killing people will draw unwanted attention) she might decide it's not tactically wise to act like a cold heartless terminator at every potential opportunity.

That might make the moments when she pulls a gun out and shoots people even more chilling. How woudl you view this kind of 'humanization' Xenomorphine?
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    

stunna262
55. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 7 2008, 8:54 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 7 2008, 8:54 AM EST
alright, consider this point.

Just like any AI, if it is self learning, then it learns everything around it. Human emotions and all.

Arnie said skynet sends out units in read only because Skynet doesnt want them to think. (hints if they think, they could be trouble....)
The Turk episode claimed the chess game beat you in different ways like it wanted to learn differently.

AI is not a straightforward thing, its always changing. From the movies and books I know, usually AI will follow orders, but after a while it wants more power and ALWAYS ends up being self-preservation. (Skynet anyone?) remember it attack us cause we tried to pull the plug. Usually it gets so smart and turns on its creators, (halo's cortana) and this is Skynets defination...

Cameron could have taken that bar for either future repairs (i mean they already started fights with 3 different terminators) or she knows its possible it can be used for something else. Maybe a weapon to help beat the terminators.. Who knows I doubt we even see that bar again.

As for cameron not taking damage that last episode. A bar like that wont break the skin really, just bruise later. Besides, spare me the 5 minutes of her putting on makeup and telling john about brain surgery. haha

Cameron is a machine! NOT human or a mix. She is a different model number for sure. She was shorter, lighter, and faster then the other 3 terminators thus far. Cameron just has an AI learning human standards.
4  out of 4 found this valuable. Do you?    
Mebaman
Mebaman
56. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 7 2008, 9:25 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 7 2008, 9:25 AM EST
It should be noted that emotions in humans are understood to be largely influenced by biochemicals and specialized structures in the brain. If these structures are damaged or chemicals imbalanced, mental illness or simply a lack of emotion may be experienced on the part of the human subject. There is one report of a man, who after suffering minor brain trauma, recovered all his cognitive functions, was able to think and learn, but simply could not develop an emotional attachment to or interest in anyone. I believe that if machines ever become truly intelligent, they would similarly be capable of all cognitive functions and have the ability to learn and adapt from experience but would be incapable of developing emotional relationships with anyone (sort of a sociopath). An intelligent machine may be capable of simulating human behavior but such simulations would have a practical motivation as opposed to a motivation rooted in passion or emotion.

Of course, such a machine is not very interesting from a literary standpoint (unless you look at it from the standpoint of a human who becomes emotionally invested in such a machine based on the outward appearance and behaviors of such but must eventually realize that the "feeling" is not mutual). Interestingly, this idea has been explored in robotics with robots like "Kismet" that have been designed to elicit emotional responses in humans.
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
jasonosborne79
jasonosborne79
57. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 7 2008, 10:29 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 7 2008, 10:29 AM EST
When I'm thinking of Cameron, I'm thinking of her being more along the lines of Dexter Morgan from the Dexter tv series and novels. He's a sociopath who feels, but not quite, and struggles with satisfying his uncontrollable urge to kill and living his life and coming to terms with who or what he really is.

Who knows what Cameron is truly capable of? I can't wait to find out :-)
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
jasonosborne79
jasonosborne79
58. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 7 2008, 10:47 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 7 2008, 10:47 AM EST
"When I'm thinking of Cameron, I'm thinking of her being more along the lines of Dexter Morgan from the Dexter tv series and novels. He's a sociopath who feels, but not quite, and struggles with satisfying his uncontrollable urge to kill and living his life and coming to terms with who or what he really is.

Who knows what Cameron is truly capable of? I can't wait to find out :-)"
Of course, I don't mean to say that she has an uncontrollable urge to kill (she doesn't), but the sociopathic-like behavior is similar.
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
sidspappy
sidspappy
59. RE: Theories on Cameron and the bar of coltran
Feb 7 2008, 1:50 PM EST | Post edited: Feb 7 2008, 1:50 PM EST
I think the word we're looking for here is empathy. Right now, Cameron does not have it. Arnie in T2 had the beginnings of it at the end of the movie "I know now why you cry, but it's something I can never do." I think as the show moves forward, as Cameron accumulates more data to enhance her programming, she may yet develop empathy for humans, and not kill at every opportunity (to not be as "efficient.").

As for true emotions? I don't even think the experts in A.I. can truly determine whether a machine could ever develop true feelings or not. I'd like to think that they could - we are machines as well, only biochemically based.
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next > Last

Related Content

  (what's this?Related ContentThanks to keyword tags, links to related pages and threads are added to the bottom of your pages. Up to 15 links are shown, determined by matching tags and by how recently the content was updated; keeping the most current at the top. Share your feedback on Wetpaint Central.)