Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Principle of Non-interference
Message-ID: <232@umich.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 02:30:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: umich.232
Posted: Tue Sep 17 02:30:37 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 03:55:15 EDT
References: <588@mmintl.UUCP> <1525@pyuxd.UUCP> <617@mmintl.UUCP> <1624@pyuxd.UUCP> <637@mmintl.UUCP> <1664@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: torek@eecs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 24
Summary: Frank Adams is right

In article <1664@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>> ...  This [principle, by itself] has some content, but not
>> very much.  It doesn't let you wear a red shirt in public, because someone
>> may not like to see it.  It doesn't even let you appear in public. [ADAMS]
>
>Is seeing something you don't like an act of interference?  Do you have the
>right to destroy anything that "offends" your sensibilities?  Of course not.
>Not liking something isn't an act of interference against you.  ...

Frank Adams is right.  As a first attempt to explain why, contrast an act
that intuitively seems like unfair interference:  inflicting severe pain.
In the red shirt example, we have photons from my shirt entering your eyes
and registering a sensation in your mind that you (for some reason) dislike.
In the infliction of pain example, though, the physical description of what's
going on might be almost the same -- only this time I'm shining a bright
light into your eyes (almost, but not quite, bright enough to cause permanent
vision impairment)!

Presumably Rich will say that the very bright light in the eyes is inter-
ference, but the red shirt isn't.  But ON WHAT OBJECTIVIE BASIS can this
distinction be drawn?  The principle of non-interference cannot supply the
criteria.  Some other criteria must be at work.

--The return of the iconoclast			Paul V Torek