Trust

[path_of_one]

Trust is an action directed by our own thought process.

How can any action I take be a result of someone else's thought process? Someone else's brain can't will me to do anything without the cooperation of my own brain.

The rest of it, I'm not sure what you're getting at. You asked my why your worker won't trust others yet trusts his own recklessness. And I said- control issues. Didn't imply that I had such control issues, just said, I think that's why your worker does what he does.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

How can any action I take be a result of someone else's thought process? Someone else's brain can't will me to do anything without the cooperation of my own brain.

Look into my eyes, look into my eyes, the eyes, they eyes, eyes, not around the eyes, not around the eyes, look into my eyes... The eyes! *snaps fingers* You're under...

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Trust is an action directed by our own thought process.

Well, I submit it is the exact opposite of what you claim. I submit that: Trust involves no thought and a lack of Trust involves lots of thought.

Imagine I want to go on vacation so I pick a complete stranger off the street, I ask him to watch my house while I'm gone, he agrees, and so I hand him my keys. I go off on a long vacation. I gave someone control over my house on his word... I've trusted a stranger. If during that vacation I pester myself with thoughts of whether or not the guy was trustworthy, or I think of all the things that COULD happen, or I call someone else to go check up on my house... that would all stem from my lack of trust in the stranger. So trust involved very little thought, and a lack of trust involved lots of thought.

I realize you would focus on the decision to trust a stranger, but trust in the stranger is not in the information that is known... it is in the unknown or in the risk that the information given was wrong. If the portion that is purely risk is identified, any thought placed towards that risk is a waste of time. That is NOT to say that it is a waste spending time gaining knowledge to reduce risk, or identifying what portion of an action is risky, or in deciding what risk is acceptable. It is to say that there is a true unknown which no amount of thinking is going to amount to any good. It would be like walking into a casino and trying to decipher the pattern of a machine. Some risk is unavoidable and the trust is in that risk. If there is any information to be decided upon, then the risk is that the information was wrong. Furthermore, I'm advocating trust into a person, which makes information and machines... the will of a person is impossible to predict.

I frankly don't know if the stranger is trustworthy or not. If he's not then I will discover it... I will gain that knowledge first hand. All references or records may say that the person was untrustworthy, but that information may also be suspect. The true knowledge can be gained. With spirit the trust precedes the knowledge. I am not advocating blind trust... I am simply trying to show that trust is in a portion of another person, which is hidden. All manner of thought won't gain the knowledge that the trust will.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

How can any action I take be a result of someone else's thought process? Someone else's brain can't will me to do anything without the cooperation of my own brain.

That would be like saying that nobody can will your computer to do something unless your computer cooperates. It is not true. Someone can will a person to do something against their will with deception or a forced reaction. As a result a person may not have knowledge and may willingly agree, but then discover that it was not really per their will.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I was using the example to help pin a definition of trust. With selfishness a person does not see the value in trusting their neighbor... it is easy to take risks for personal gain but harder to take risks for the gain of a neighbor.

A purpose of my raising this issue with you was:

Originally Posted by path_of_one

The theists trust their own experience or the recorded experiences of others to believe God exists.

This is a very false statement to me. True knowledge that God exists does not come by trusting experience or the recorded experiences of others; rather it is that the experience... the true knowledge... comes by trusting God. If God is a stranger heard only via rumor, then the practice should be in trusting strangers. If strangers are too hard to trust then the practice should be in trusting relatives. If relatives are too hard to trust then the practice should be in trusting children. If even children are too hard to trust, then how can a person ever really hope to get to know God... since they will never truly know their own children, relatives, or strangers. Like getting to know a stranger, the trust precedes the knowledge... and then the stranger won't be a stranger anymore.

[greymare]

Originally Posted by Alex P

Look into my eyes, look into my eyes, the eyes, they eyes, eyes, not around the eyes, not around the eyes, look into my eyes... The eyes! *snaps fingers* You're under...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL LOve Little Britian

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by greymare

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL LOve Little Britian

I know it is big in oz, but that stems around the fact there is little entertainment there lol... Hence the men dressed as women :P It got plugged too fast too hard here, it's old and repetitive now... But I still like Kenny the hypnotist...

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Well, I submit it is the exact opposite of what you claim. I submit that: Trust involves no thought and a lack of Trust involves lots of thought.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I can't see how anything we decide to do involves no thought. To make a decision- any decision- involves some amount of thought.

It is to say that there is a true unknown which no amount of thinking is going to amount to any good.

My point is that we have ideas about what to do with true unknowns. Even dealing with the unknown is based on some information we have about what this means. I think you are equating thought with rational critical thinking and I am meaning it in terms of brain activity that leads to a decision. You are equating experience with knowns and I am saying we can even have experience or information about what to do with unknowns.

That would be like saying that nobody can will your computer to do something unless your computer cooperates. It is not true.

We aren't computers.

Someone can will a person to do something against their will with deception or a forced reaction. As a result a person may not have knowledge and may willingly agree, but then discover that it was not really per their will.

A person can deceive but a person cannot force another person to do something. There is always another option of resistance. It just sometimes entails a high cost. Deception is not the same thing as programming a computer, either. One could always avoid being a victim of deception by using what one knows about deception to trust fewer people. Either way, it is a decision one makes based on prior information and experience.

People aren't puppets, nor are they computers running on programs. We have consciousness and sentience, so we work differently.

With selfishness a person does not see the value in trusting their neighbor... it is easy to take risks for personal gain but harder to take risks for the gain of a neighbor.

I don't think that has to do with trust, but rather altruism. To take risks for another is altruistic. Trusting a neighbor is not necessarily altruistic. It can be for our own ends as well. Trust itself is neither selfish nor unselfish- the motivation behind it is one or the other (or both).

True knowledge that God exists does not come by trusting experience or the recorded experiences of others; rather it is that the experience... the true knowledge... comes by trusting God. If God is a stranger heard only via rumor, then the practice should be in trusting strangers. If strangers are too hard to trust then the practice should be in trusting relatives. If relatives are too hard to trust then the practice should be in trusting children. If even children are too hard to trust, then how can a person ever really hope to get to know God... since they will never truly know their own children, relatives, or strangers. Like getting to know a stranger, the trust precedes the knowledge... and then the stranger won't be a stranger anymore.

My point is that the decision to trust God, in order to have the experience, is, by your own description here, based on trusting others' information/experience of God- be they strangers, relatives, or children.

My point is that we are choosing to trust based on someone's prior experience or information- our own or another person's (strangers, relatives, kids).

And there are people who did not trust God based on what they heard from others, but God still found them... sometimes in dramatic ways.

I may not trust a stranger, but a stranger can still interact with me.

[China Cat Sunflower]

There are varying levels of trust. I like the idea that trust is simply a willingness to be surprised.

Chris

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

There are varying levels of trust. I like the idea that trust is simply a willingness to be surprised.

Chris

Dang! That's good, Chris! :O

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I can't see how anything we decide to do involves no thought. To make a decision- any decision- involves some amount of thought.

Whether or not a decision must involve thought, where I was trying to draw the differences is: a decision to trust is NOT the act of trusting.

The will to trust, the decision to trust, the ability to trust, and actually trusting someone are NOT the same thing. As a similar example: the decision to play a sport is NOT the ability or talent to play the sport. There is a knowledge or talent with a sport that can only be had by playing it... the playing precedes that knowledge. No decision making or amount of brain activity is ever going to incorporate that knowledge without first playing the sport. Similarly, trusting a person precedes a knowledge... and no decision making or amount of brain activity is ever going to incorporate that knowledge without first trusting. Even if there exists prior information that establishes a person lacks trustworthiness, there still exists the ability to trust that person. The act of trusting is not in the decision to trust.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I think you are equating thought with rational critical thinking and I am meaning it in terms of brain activity that leads to a decision.

No, I was saying that there is a true unknown in which it is a waste of time, energy, and life to employ any brain activity towards it whatsoever.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

We aren't computers.

That was kind of my point... I regard the brain as a computer.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

A person can deceive but a person cannot force another person to do something. There is always another option of resistance. It just sometimes entails a high cost. Deception is not the same thing as programming a computer, either. One could always avoid being a victim of deception by using what one knows about deception to trust fewer people. Either way, it is a decision one makes based on prior information and experience.

To resist the risk of being deceived, you advocate trusting fewer people and claim that this decision is based on prior information and experience. But a person that will not trust and has never personally trusted a person is based on fallable second hand information and no experience whatsoever... it requires trust to truly gain the information and experience.

Another approach is to trust and to expect to sometimes be deceived... not because deceiving others is good but because it is good to trust and it is good to catch whatever deceives. Sometimes it is one's own mind with entrenched beliefs or distorted views, and sometimes it is a person who lacks the faith to be open and honest, so instead lies to deceive.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

My point is that the decision to trust God, in order to have the experience, is, by your own description here, based on trusting others' information/experience of God- be they strangers, relatives, or children.

No, that is not my description. My point is that if a person can not trust the one, then the person can not trust the other.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

My point is that we are choosing to trust based on someone's prior experience or information- our own or another person's (strangers, relatives, kids).

How can you honestly speak for 'WE'... do you know, having experienced or gained information from, having shared trust with every single member of 'WE'? I do not have to trust based on anyone's prior information or experience.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Whether or not a decision must involve thought, where I was trying to draw the differences is: a decision to trust is NOT the act of trusting.

The will to trust, the decision to trust, the ability to trust, and actually trusting someone are NOT the same thing.

I can see where you're going with this. But I don't see how we can trust without deciding to trust, even if that is not a conscious decision. Our brain has to be involved somehow.

As a similar example: the decision to play a sport is NOT the ability or talent to play the sport. There is a knowledge or talent with a sport that can only be had by playing it...

That's true. But I suppose it goes something like: We decide to play a sport. This decision is based on something. We might never have played the sport before, but our decision to do so is based on what we have learned about the sport from others. So then, we proceed with playing the sport. Arising from this is personal knowledge/experience gained.

In the case of trust, it gets tricky because another person can interact with us without our choice. We can choose not to trust, but the experience can precede our choice to have it, since we don't control others, but only our own response. So, in the case of trust, we could decide to trust without prior firsthand knowledge/experience. Or, we could choose to trust after we hae gained firsthand knowledge/experience. Depends on the circumstances, it seems.

Similarly, trusting a person precedes a knowledge... and no decision making or amount of brain activity is ever going to incorporate that knowledge without first trusting. Even if there exists prior information that establishes a person lacks trustworthiness, there still exists the ability to trust that person. The act of trusting is not in the decision to trust.

I think it is... it's just that we can choose various options with the same information. That is, trusting is not a result of being informed of trustworthiness. We could choose to trust someone who we have been informed is untrustworthy. But my point is that even that choice is based on information and some sort of brain activity.

No, I was saying that there is a true unknown in which it is a waste of time, energy, and life to employ any brain activity towards it whatsoever.

I agree with that. But the way we handle unknowns- that we think this way- is itself a function of how we've learned to process information and decisions concerning unknowns.

That was kind of my point... I regard the brain as a computer.

Got it. I don't, except as a heuristic device.

To resist the risk of being deceived, you advocate trusting fewer people and claim that this decision is based on prior information and experience. But a person that will not trust and has never personally trusted a person is based on fallable second hand information and no experience whatsoever... it requires trust to truly gain the information and experience.

I'm not really advocating anything. I'm just pondering. I would say all information and experience is fallible, including first-hand. Once this is recognized and one is resigned to it, one accepts rolling with punches and it becomes not so much an issue of trust as one of letting go of self enough to take risk. I don't know if all that makes sense. I'm rambling.

No, that is not my description. My point is that if a person can not trust the one, then the person can not trust the other.

You mean if I can't trust a stranger, then I can't trust my family?

How can you honestly speak for 'WE'... do you know, having experienced or gained information from, having shared trust with every single member of 'WE'? I do not have to trust based on anyone's prior information or experience.

Every person is embedded in culture, and consciously or not, is trusting some aspect of social conditioning... which is based on others' information and experiences, transmitted through learning over time to younger generations. I don't see how this hallmark of humanity can be avoided. I speak for "we" as an observation on the human species. I wouldn't be a very good theorist if I only ever spoke of "I" when it came to cognition and culture. I'm just spinning out ideas, based on my theoretical background.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Whether or not a decision must involve thought, where I was trying to draw the differences is: a decision to trust is NOT the act of trusting.

The will to trust, the decision to trust, the ability to trust, and actually trusting someone are NOT the same thing. As a similar example: the decision to play a sport is NOT the ability or talent to play the sport. There is a knowledge or talent with a sport that can only be had by playing it... the playing precedes that knowledge. No decision making or amount of brain activity is ever going to incorporate that knowledge without first playing the sport. Similarly, trusting a person precedes a knowledge... and no decision making or amount of brain activity is ever going to incorporate that knowledge without first trusting. Even if there exists prior information that establishes a person lacks trustworthiness, there still exists the ability to trust that person. The act of trusting is not in the decision to trust.

No, I was saying that there is a true unknown in which it is a waste of time, energy, and life to employ any brain activity towards it whatsoever.

That was kind of my point... I regard the brain as a computer.

To resist the risk of being deceived, you advocate trusting fewer people and claim that this decision is based on prior information and experience. But a person that will not trust and has never personally trusted a person is based on fallable second hand information and no experience whatsoever... it requires trust to truly gain the information and experience.

Another approach is to trust and to expect to sometimes be deceived... not because deceiving others is good but because it is good to trust and it is good to catch whatever deceives. Sometimes it is one's own mind with entrenched beliefs or distorted views, and sometimes it is a person who lacks the faith to be open and honest, so instead lies to deceive.

No, that is not my description. My point is that if a person can not trust the one, then the person can not trust the other.

How can you honestly speak for 'WE'... do you know, having experienced or gained information from, having shared trust with every single member of 'WE'? I do not have to trust based on anyone's prior information or experience.

That is incorrect. We choose to trust, whether on a consious level or not. We may give inherent trust when we first encounter people or situations, but still that is a decision to trust (remain open, vulnerable).

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

That is incorrect. We choose to trust, whether on a consious level or not. We may give inherent trust when we first encounter people or situations, but still that is a decision to trust (remain open, vulnerable).

As an aside, I would like to move this part of the thread into a new thread in Philosophy or something and call it, "Trust".

Reason is that this really is splitting away from the original thought of this current thread.

v/r

Q

[path_of_one]

I agree, Q- it's gone on for a long time and deserves its own thread. Do you want to move it, or shall I?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I agree, Q- it's gone on for a long time and deserves its own thread. Do you want to move it, or shall I?

Be my guest be my guest, we must serve with all the best... lol

[cyberpi]

No, don't move it. The title is why do you 'believe' in your religion. We've simply rephrased the question: "Why do you 'trust' your religion".

One or more here maintain that 'trust' is a decision based on experience or information. I maintain that if there is any judgment based on experience or information whatsoever in a decision to trust... then that judgement is NOT itself the 'trust'. The 'trust' is in something else... an unknown. Not that a person or God is unknown, but that not all of a person or God is ever fully known.