Location: Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles Discussion Forum

Discussion: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the arguement

Category: Discussion Forum / General Discussion

Report thread
Watch thread
Share this

1 2 3 | Next

ChrisCoachKKincey	The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the arguement Mar 17 2009, 2:05 PM EDT During the last ep Cam says "The problem is humans." For me, that was a shock, bc I for one would like to see her become more human, and I see anything trying to become that they consider a problem! Obviously, she views herself not human: on the outside of humanity. She doesn't seem to have a problem with this: she doesn't have a birthday, she has a build day - and doesn't know what it is (?). We viewers enjoy her when she is trying to figure out what humans are about, and how to mesh in this society; but since the pilot the writers have portrayed her as lacking in the very skills she was designed to do well: infiltrate by mimicing. She seems akward and clumsy. We know that she was around for quite some time before she met John, so she should be pretty grounded in how to interact. At least she did at first, but after meeting JC, whatever was in her database has washed out, and she seems incapable of re-filling it with any rapidity. But we love those quirky little moments, and the writers don't seem to want to with the other main characters so we can see more of them. So we have to fill in the gaps with our own imaginations. How far toward human could she go. Uncle Bob went pretty far in only two days. Obviously some fans want a Jameron ship. This ranges from comrades to loving companions. We're NOT going to discuss THAT aspect of this. What we are talking about is her capacity to learn how to feel, for herself, as herself. Self aware. I know from research that SKynet was supposed to be afraid of Terminators doing that, so they put a dampner chip to prevent that on models T-600's and above. They made 1,000 T-1000's but only activated a few of them for that reason. We may have seen rebel Terminators who were working with JC in the future in this 2 part ep. Post reply Do you find this valuable? Keyword tags: analysis arlond cameron game john sarah science script T2 T3 T4 Terminators time travel TSCC video writers
ChrisCoachKKincey	1. RE: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the arguement Mar 17 2009, 2:17 PM EDT continued... Those endo's couldn't come through time because they have no "flesh." But Cameron, Uncle Bob, and Weaver do, albeit syntheric flesh of different varieties. Does this qualify them as human - since they seem to be able to "fool" Quantum Physics? If they didn't have that stupid "kill humans" programming, and been born of a psychotic parent (Skynet) how would they develop and what would they develop into. Would they become like wrestlers on the WWE and become arrogant bc they are bigger, stronger, faster and smarter than us? Would they take over the world for OUR own good. Would they be willing to acheive a sense of "higher purpose" and connection with anything "spiritual? Would their sensors be able to detect vibrations and harmonics that we only fainting are aware of - and make the "spiritual" aspects of life more "real" - reporting what they find? Would they be willing to function as a group? Be tolerant, and respectful other life forms. Would WE consider them a life form? That's what this thread is about. Cam cam through time, and only living things can, so is she living; as in a "life form?" If she is, what rights does she have, and what restrictions should she have? She already violated the right to life of three guys in that bowling alley, and doesn't seem to care. But she also seems to "love" John and cares enough to offer her life if need be to protect him from her. That's rather deep. continued... Post reply Do you find this valuable?
ChrisCoachKKincey	2. RE: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the arguement Mar 17 2009, 2:27 PM EDT I still think Cameron is a machine operating on progams fed to her by Skynet and John Conners of the future. I think all she has been doing was based upon those parameters. I know some people don't, but then I also think JF wrote it so it could be interpreted either way, so let me say I think we are ALL right, right up front. Don't argue that please, as no one can win. But I think Cameron is becoming more than the sum of her parts and her programming. I think she is learning and evolving. Maybe by the time 2029 comes, she is the survivor of a long intense interaction with humans since 1997 and is both old, wise, and understanding of a great many things. Humans would be, and we know jack coming out the womb! Interested in hearing your views, and I'd prefer more on the technical side than the relationship side. I'd prefer this not be about a shippers and anti war-fest. I'm curious how it can be both ways: machine and human. There is evidence of both. But then, I consider humans to be a colony of cell colonies comprising a animal/vegetable/mineral robot housing our souls: our direct connection with the divine? Cameron may merely be made of stronger "minerals." She may be able to perceive "oneness" in the universe, an alpha point cutting edge science IS leaning towards along every discpline including high mathematics. Put your thinking caps on, open your hearts and let whatever YOU fell flow out. This is the greatness that Terminator has been able to provide as a platform for human discussion for 25 years. And that is far more profound than just whether or not teenaged John is secretly enthralled with a hot looking girl how gave him attention at a time when no one would - and his mother wouldn't allow it anyway. (She was going to shoot Riley too...) Discuss. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Iranatest	3. RE: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the arguement Mar 17 2009, 2:27 PM EDT Obviously she is not human, so the question becomes one of degrees. Physically maybe 20% human. Even her flesh and blood are artificial. Mentally she is quite human with her abilities. An age rating fits here: about 10 years old. Socially she can fit in and fake people out very well. Compared to any other terminator in the series she is the most emotional, but lacks whole branches of emotions At this point I would say on a scale of 1 to ten she has a combined average of 50% humanity. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
3_dots	4. RE: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the argueme Mar 17 2009, 2:31 PM EDT i think...her saying that "humans are the problem" is just her way of saying to all...John's mine and mine alone.... Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Iranatest	5. RE: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the argueme Mar 17 2009, 2:35 PM EDT "i think...her saying that "humans are the problem" is just her way of saying to all...John's mine and mine alone...." Jelousy isn't a healthy emotion. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
JMHthe3rd	6. RE: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the arguement Mar 17 2009, 2:41 PM EDT \| Post edited: Mar 17 2009, 2:42 PM EDT She's a sentient, self-aware being whose behavior and thoughts are governed by a series of programmed instincts. (same as us humans) There is "something it is like" to be Cameron. When you look into her eyes, there is an entity looking back, exactly the same way "something" looks back when you look into the eyes of a human or an animal. So, while of course she isn't human, she is a person, and should have all the rights of a legally defined person. To kill her in cold blood would be murder. Hell, I consider Cromartie and Vick and Queeg to be persons too, though of a much more limited capacity. As for spiritual concerns. Well, I'm an atheist. That's irrelevant to me. "Soul" to me means "sentient, self-aware being" i.e. the "what's it like to be that person" of an individual. Post reply 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
3_dots	7. RE: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the argueme Mar 17 2009, 2:41 PM EDT "Jelousy isn't a healthy emotion." i even think they wrote that as one of the deadly sins....but i don't want to go biblical with this issue... Post reply Do you find this valuable?
ChrisCoachKKincey	8. RE: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the arguement Mar 17 2009, 2:49 PM EDT "Obviously she is not human, so the question becomes one of degrees. Physically maybe 20% human. Even her flesh and blood are artificial. Mentally she is quite human with her abilities. An age rating fits here: about 10 years old. Socially she can fit in and fake people out very well. Compared to any other terminator in the series she is the most emotional, but lacks whole branches of emotions At this point I would say on a scale of 1 to ten she has a combined average of 50% humanity." Well. How much "human" qualifies you as human! Whites used to use the "one drop" rule for how much blood qualified you to be a Negro. How much of her skin is her entire make-up? And I've read T-800's and above had a small heart and other internal organs to keep the skin healthy. So if she has enough to be a "complete human" to go along with the skin organ covering, how else can we determine her human values? Ditto CW, although she is delightfully creepy indeed. She actually trying to learn how human act, and operate, and is right next to the best trained cop investigator in the country and he only has "suspisions" things aren't quite right with her. We saw a robot "girl" - complete with boobs (larger than most Japanese women - so we know what nerdy Japanese tech geeks are thinking...) - yesterday unvielled. How long before a robot could work beside us and do a good job? So good we wouldn't notice the difference unless we KNEW> Maybe this is John's problem with Cameron. She's so unnervingly human LOOKING that she represents how far Skynet would go to get next to humans - especially HIM - to kill them. I'm not sure I'd want her around either in that respect. So. What's the vote? What % makes Cam human? Will 20% do? Post reply Do you find this valuable?
JMHthe3rd	9. RE: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the arguement Mar 17 2009, 2:54 PM EDT To be honest, I think the question is flawed. She's not human, she never will be, and wearing human skin doesn't count. Her mind in entirely alien to a human's, even if her chip were to be somehow hooked up into a human body. Her chip is a brain, and it's very different from a human's. The best analogy would be thinking of her as an extra-terrestrial. Asking how human she is is like asking how human are the Klingons? Post reply Do you find this valuable?
ChrisCoachKKincey	10. RE: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the arguement Mar 17 2009, 2:59 PM EDT "She's a sentient, self-aware being whose behavior and thoughts are governed by a series of programmed instincts. (same as us humans) There is "something it is like" to be Cameron. When you look into her eyes, there is an entity looking back, exactly the same way "something" looks back when you look into the eyes of a human or an animal. So, while of course she isn't human, she is a person, and should have all the rights of a legally defined person. To kill her in cold blood would be murder. Hell, I consider Cromartie and Vick and Queeg to be persons too, though of a much more limited capacity. As for spiritual concerns. Well, I'm an atheist. That's irrelevant to me. "Soul" to me means "sentient, self-aware being" i.e. the "what's it like to be that person" of an individual." If there is something in Cameron's eyes, JH said there was nothing in CW's. But then, CW is one a mission that includes killing, and Cam is not - she has only killed WHEN she felt the mission was threatened. I remember the Cap'n in Jaws saying that sharks had cold, dead eyes - and they are the most efficent killing machines on the planet next to WMDs. Maybe that is way we determine what is human, their capacity to bring life to a better state, than to kill it. Certainly that seems to be what Cameron is trying to do with birds, although she's having a hard time of it. In Scientology, soul is Theta = thought. It is the self aware unit: sentience. Beingness. Same thing. I think no matter what you call it, when you get to that singulatity point where all things originate and converge - all oneness as a source and a completeness, to all things being separate and individual; we find a both a duality, and the notion that labels don't matter: we all "know" we're experiencing and talking about the same things. Had this convesatation with a bunch of high level scientists and their work is leading them to these conclusions. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
HawkDsl	11. RE: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the argueme Mar 17 2009, 3:03 PM EDT Cam human.... hmmmm... How about "breed". They are an Artificial Intelligence base on homo-sapiens.... Different branch of the tree, but of the same tree... A new breed of human. Star Trek dwelt with this very problem with Data, when it was taken to court if he was a person, or property. That case settled it for me. Cameron is a new life form. And I have no doubt that in the future, that case will play out in real life. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
3_dots	12. RE: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the argueme Mar 17 2009, 3:03 PM EDT \| Post edited: Mar 17 2009, 3:05 PM EDT "Well. How much "human" qualifies you as human! " the same arguments can be made to people with artificial limbs....are they lesser percentage humans bcoz' they have bionic arms or legs? those people who have metal plate skulls are they also considered less humans bcoz they don't have the natural skulls....does a person with an artificial heart a mechanical device that is implanted into the body to replace the biological heart to pump it are less humans???......no! the difference between the Japanese robot and the Cameron character is that Cam is part human organism...does that make her a human...maybe not 100%...but there's human in her that we can not deny.... Post reply Do you find this valuable?
ChrisCoachKKincey	13. RE: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the arguement Mar 17 2009, 3:07 PM EDT "To be honest, I think the question is flawed. She's not human, she never will be, and wearing human skin doesn't count. Her mind in entirely alien to a human's, even if her chip were to be somehow hooked up into a human body. Her chip is a brain, and it's very different from a human's. The best analogy would be thinking of her as an extra-terrestrial. Asking how human she is is like asking how human are the Klingons?" Well, how human ARe the Klingons? Our own brains are nothing more than an FM reciever for our minds - and science doesn't know WHERE the human mind actually is! Our brains take data and musings from the mind and convert these impulses to the nueral net where comples peptide protiens are manufactured for distribution to the various cell colonies to change the composition of the cells to functions AS programmed. Don't know how Cameron works but we can see the result. If the Conners paid any attention they could prolly get a WHOLE lot more out of Cameron! We know she has a chip. We know she has a "brain" and can think, and pose questions and analyze answers, to such a high degree she is pretty much like a "normal" smart human being. But does she ALSO have a mind? Of her own? How do we know this, and how important is that? Post reply Do you find this valuable?
DeadpooI	14. RE: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the argueme Mar 17 2009, 3:10 PM EDT \| Post edited: Mar 17 2009, 3:16 PM EDT "If there is something in Cameron's eyes, JH said there was nothing in CW's. But then, CW is one a mission that includes killing, and Cam is not - she has only killed WHEN she felt the mission was threatened." There is physically "nothing" in Weaver's eyes. Underneath her human appearance she doesn't even have a retina or artificial eye (human and Cam style respectively.) I believe that he was talking about the fact that she's just an endless void of "mercury" behind those faux eyes. It seems odd, on multiple counts, that Baby Skynet would not believe a machine had any non-physical worth behind its eyes, or a "soul." The Turk clearly has the same kind of free-will and sentience as a young human. In some ways it is better equipped to ponder the more "grown up" machines, as it has no mission related programming and emotional blocks. Sharks look like they "cold, dead eyes" - they are usually predominantly black and nothing else. Unrelentingly bleak. Give a human similar contact lenses and people would say they had "cold, dead eyes." The fact that the eyes of a shark look menacing doesn't say anything about the nature of its "soul." (I really dislike that word for the supernatural connotations.) Many animals have menacing eyes that humans would judge to be indicative of something malicious, but humans pull many things out of their ass. A gecko and a crocodile have similar eyes, but they're totally different animals in terms of behaviour. Post reply 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
ChrisCoachKKincey	15. RE: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the argueme Mar 17 2009, 3:11 PM EDT "Cam human.... hmmmm... How about "breed". They are an Artificial Intelligence base on homo-sapiens.... Different branch of the tree, but of the same tree... A new breed of human. Star Trek dwelt with this very problem with Data, when it was taken to court if he was a person, or property. That case settled it for me. Cameron is a new life form. And I have no doubt that in the future, that case will play out in real life. " In Terminator mythology (the novels) JC deals with this. He helps rebel Terminators and they turn the tide in the war against Skynet. So JC agrees with you. But this didn't go over too well in the human ranks. Plus, he stayed isolated all the time. Same story seems to be playing out in TSCC. Guess who was with him all the time? Guess why Derek doens't like Cam and Evil!Jesse came back with sucker for love pawn Riley? So. Cameron is a NEW human life form. Consensus? (knowing science can't even agree on what a "species" is...) Post reply Do you find this valuable?
ChrisCoachKKincey	16. RE: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the argueme Mar 17 2009, 3:17 PM EDT "the same arguments can be made to people with artificial limbs....are they lesser percentage humans bcoz' they have bionic arms or legs? those people who have metal plate skulls are they also considered less humans bcoz they don't have the natural skulls....does a person with an artificial heart a mechanical device that is implanted into the body to replace the biological heart to pump it are less humans???......no! the difference between the Japanese robot and the Cameron character is that Cam is part human organism...does that make her a human...maybe not 100%...but there's human in her that we can not deny...." I'm not arguing, I'm asking (you). What makes up a human. James Cameron used the device that only himan tissue could go through time, but we know that was just so he could have Arnold as the big bad. But what if there were no "flesh" elements, but the entity/being could function as humans do. Does that qualify? Would it be easily recongnizable and accepted? I X-Men they have the mutant wars. We are in a people's country, "liberating them" with bullets, bombs and torture, because we have "democracy," and they don't - so we are going to give it to them "for their own good.," supposing they can't do for themselves (when the REAL reason is oil baron grabbing greed!) Prejudice in any form is stll... Post reply Do you find this valuable?
JMHthe3rd	17. RE: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the arguement Mar 17 2009, 3:17 PM EDT "ChrisCoachKKincey: If there is something in Cameron's eyes, JH said there was nothing in CW's . . . [snip]" Well, I don't think JH meant CW isn't sentient and self-aware. He probably meant she didn't have any retinas behind the eyes. After all, her eyes aren't really eyes, anyway. I'd imagine she has full 360 degree vision. And I think it's safe to say sharks have sentience -- that "inside" that feels. Though of course they aren't self-aware. I may be an atheist, but I am not a pure physicalist. Pure physicalism can't account for subjective experience, which implies that there is something intrinsic to reality that allows certain structures to manifest sentience. Essentially, I mean that sentience is a fundamental aspect of the universe. Descriptions of brain states will never in and of themselves lead to knowing "what's it like" to be that brain, though in physics those are the only facts available. I suppose one can say I'm a reluctant panpsychist, or panexperientialist. Or a neutral monist. It's really the only position that makes sense to me. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
600series	18. RE: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the arguement Mar 17 2009, 3:23 PM EDT "1) We viewers enjoy her when she is trying to figure out what humans are about, and how to mesh in this society; but since the pilot the writers have portrayed her as lacking in the very skills she was designed to do well: infiltrate by mimicing. She seems akward and clumsy. 2) How far toward human could she go. Uncle Bob went pretty far in only two days. 3) What we are talking about is her capacity to learn how to feel, for herself, as herself. Self aware. " 1) That's a storytelling gimmick. They want to show her evolving and developing in the story, so they started at the beginning to show her progression. Even in the first episode, she "fools" John, with smiles, laughs and a sense of understanding that evaporates by the next episode. Bummer really. 2) In my point of view, she isn't human, so Cam and Uncle Bob both were simulating being human. 3) In contrast to the shipper movement, I don't see Terminators learning how to "feel" emotions. They infiltrate by mimicry and replication of the emotional responses of others. Weaver would be a good example, as she doesn't "feel" any particular way, but learns what the expected and acceptable responses are, and then simulates them (reference her responses to her daughter). I dislike the notion of corrupting perfected state of the art, war machines by giving them rash, impulsive and sometimes unreasonable emotional factors in their decision making process. Otherwise, we could just call them a rehash of Mr. Data from Star Trek: TNG. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
ChrisCoachKKincey	19. RE: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the argueme Mar 17 2009, 3:24 PM EDT "There is physically "nothing" in Weaver's eyes. Underneath her human appearance she doesn't even have a retina or artificial eye (human and Cam style respectively.) I believe that he was talking about the fact that she's just an endless void of "mercury" behind those faux eyes. It seems odd, on multiple counts, that Baby Skynet would not believe a machine had any non-physical worth behind its eyes, or a "soul." The Turk clearly has the same kind of free-will and sentience as a young human. In some ways it is better equipped to ponder the more "grown up" machines, as it has no mission related programming and emotional blocks. Sharks look like they "cold, dead eyes" - they are usually predominantly black and nothing else. Unrelentingly bleak. Give a human similar contact lenses and people would say they had "cold, dead eyes." The fact that the eyes of a shark look menacing doesn't say anything about the nature of its "soul." (I really dislike that word for the supernatural connotations.) Many animals have menacing eyes that humans would judge to be indicative of something malicious, but humans pull many things out of their ass. A gecko and a crocodile have similar eyes, but they're totally different animals in terms of behaviour. " Good points. But even if CW did mock up some "life" behind her faux retinas, she is still a cold, calculating a dn creepy "person." I've met stone cold killers and they too are "dead inside." They devalue human life and it is clear they ARE monsters! No longer human. Why Ellison doesn't see this in CW is amazing. Maybe he's bought her bs. Cameron is different I think. Most of the time her look has a motivation of being inquisitive behind it. Sometimes she's on point and being about her mission. Mostly she is a JF frontman for not answering a direct question directly - and bc he also controls the other characters in the show, they don't pursue the issue as it needs be! Post reply Do you find this valuable?

1 2 3 | Next

The OFFICIAL JAMERON THREAD Part II	NEVER-ENDING TSCC WORD GAME	Why John sent Cameron back in time.
What would it be like to be Cameron? Now with improved Fanfic Index	Mike70056 Fan Fiction Page	The Shots Heard Round The World
The Freaking Big Push has launched! THIS IS YOUR CALL TO ARMS!	Terminators	OT: The Official Science Stuff Thread
Terminator Fan Fictions	Cameron	Subtle Jameron fanfic

Location: Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles Discussion Forum

Discussion: The Cameron Issue: Human or No? Data for both sides of the arguement

Related Content