Trust

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

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

The atheists trust their own experience or the recorded experiences of others to believe God doesn't exist.

Both claim that their experiences are the accurate ones, and the others are delusional or limited.

Is it the trust in your own experiences or the trust in the experiences of others that you believe your husband exists... or is it the trust of your husband in you and the trust of you in him? Is a person just an experience?

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Is it the trust in your own experiences or the trust in the experiences of others that you believe your husband exists... or is it the trust of your husband in you and the trust of you in him?

The trust of my own experiences, in this particular case.

Is a person just an experience?

In my honest opinion, yes. At least, as much of a person that we can know. We only know people through our experiences with them, or through our trust of others' accounts of their experiences with them. We never know the actual person; it is always filtered through ourselves.

Our whole life is experiences. All our "reality" is based on our experiences or those of others that we accept as our own. I can't really see a way out of that- anything we point to as truth has been filtered through our experience of it, and therefore "me" and that which I experience (whether my husband, my dog, my computer, or God) is part of one interaction. Beyond that interaction is the unknowable.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

In my honest opinion, yes. At least, as much of a person that we can know. We only know people through our experiences with them, or through our trust of others' accounts of their experiences with them. We never know the actual person; it is always filtered through ourselves.

Our whole life is experiences. All our "reality" is based on our experiences or those of others that we accept as our own. I can't really see a way out of that- anything we point to as truth has been filtered through our experience of it, and therefore "me" and that which I experience (whether my husband, my dog, my computer, or God) is part of one interaction. Beyond that interaction is the unknowable.

So when you heard or said, "I do", was it instead a, "I already did"? You say that trust is in the experience, whereas I submit that trust in a person precedes the experience. In fact trust stands out in stark contrast when it is despite (counter to) the past experiences. Trustworthiness may be in the past experience, but trust is placed in the person. Trustworthiness might be a function of the past, whereas trust is of the future.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

So when you heard or said, "I do", was it instead a, "I already did"?

Yes. It was a social recognition of a relationship, an ongoing experience or interaction, that already existed. Our marriage, as the uniting of two souls, did not begin because some judge in the state of CA said it did. The marriage preceded the decision to confirm it.

I would not marry someone who I did not experience as trustworthy, and it isn't the norm in the US. That's the purpose of dating and engagement- to obtain progressively more intimate experiences so that we can ascertain whether we will commit ourselves to marriage.

You say that trust is in the experience, whereas I submit that trust in a person precedes the experience.

We can't trust someone until we experience them. Unless we are choosing to indiscriminately trust everyone at the most intimate level.

We meet our spouse, and therefore from that moment, we experience them. By the time we give them the level of trust that is a marital commitment, we have chosen to do so as a result of our accumulated experiences of them.

Alternatively, we can marry someone that others experience for us in some way. For example, we can trust an online dating service to correctly assess the proper person. So we are experiencing the person by proxy, through the characteristics we select. Or parents might arrange a marriage, and the children are trusting the experience of their parents in judging a fit partner.

In terms of God, we can (1) experience God ourselves and/or (2) experience God through the testimony of others. When a church says to a new convert, "Trust God," what do they mean? They mean, trust in the God that is represented by these other people's testimony (i.e., in the Bible). Religion asks that we put trust in others' experiences of God, and therefore prepare ourselves through this for a potential experience of our own.

We can't trust what we've never "met." If what we are meeting is an abstract, we still got it from somewhere, and are therefore basing it on an experience of another.

In fact trust stands out in stark contrast when it is despite (counter to) the past experiences.

But does anyone do this? Let me explain... It is one thing, for example, to have 10 years of a great marriage, then have your spouse do something awful, and you forgive and choose to build trust again. But the lack of trust would only be counter to a past experience, not all past experiences. It is quite another to trust someone who has never shown trustworthiness.

Time is not really linear, and memories live on in us. So to trust where trust has been broken, but once was whole, is not to place trust in the person. It is to place trust in the experiences that showed the person was trustworthy, rather than the experiences that did not-- both of which are alive in the interaction, the ongoing experience between the two people. The relationship is like a third entity- with its own life and attributes.

The basis of the trust is in the experiences, in the interactions between the two people involved.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

We can't trust what we've never "met."

Sure you can.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

We can't trust someone until we experience them. Unless we are choosing to indiscriminately trust everyone at the most intimate level.

With flesh and physical the trust comes from the knowledge. With the spirit and the relationship the knowledge comes from the trust. That contrast is a worthy pursuit.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Sure you can.

Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean by "meet." Explain to me how we can trust what we have never experienced in any way, shape, or form.

We must know of it to trust it. If we know of it, we have experienced it, either directly or indirectly.

With flesh and physical the trust comes from the knowledge. With the spirit and the relationship the knowledge comes from the trust. That contrast is a worthy pursuit.

I'm afraid I am just not getting what you're getting at. A relationship is not possible without some sort of interaction between those entities relating. That interaction is experience. How can a relationship exist without the entities relating? Or how can entities relate without any interaction/experience?

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Sure you can.

Do you trust me? Let me change that, would you trust me with your life?

[greymare]

Originally Posted by Alex P

Do you trust me? Let me change that, would you trust me with your life?

I trust me with mine and very few others. but you Alex, i trust you. LOL.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean by "meet." Explain to me how we can trust what we have never experienced in any way, shape, or form.

How? It is like a gamble, a risk, except that rather than gambling for personal gain at the expense of unseen others, the gamble is that an unseen other is good at the expense of being wrong. I guess accepting or realizing or finding the methods so that being wrong is also a good thing... is part of it.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

We must know of it to trust it. If we know of it, we have experienced it, either directly or indirectly.

Will you be applying this reasoning to your decision to trust the rest of your life with a newborn child who you have yet to know?

Other examples: Do you apply it to the other motor vehicles that approach you at high velocity? Do you apply it to the pilot of the airplane or the driver of a bus before you board it and place your life in their hands? Do you apply it to the alleged agreement you have with the people of the allegedly United people of America?

You might have some information where the validity is in question, and you consider it a matter of trust in deciding whether or not that information is valid. Fine. But you may NOT have the information, and yet there is still trust.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I'm afraid I am just not getting what you're getting at. A relationship is not possible without some sort of interaction between those entities relating. That interaction is experience. How can a relationship exist without the entities relating? Or how can entities relate without any interaction/experience?

Do you provide your personal information to strangers so that they can know you and hence trust you, or do you wait until you decide to trust them? There is a bit of a gambit where each side will not trust the other, and will not share information or provide control. Each side reasons that they should not trust the other side until they are proven trustworthy. So there is no relationship, no exchange of the pertinent information.

As another example: In the book of Genesis: The knowledge was in the tree. Did God trust Adam and Eve around the tree of knowledge? Yes. Did Adam and Eve trust God while not having that knowledge? No. With spirit the trust comes before the knowledge. With flesh the knowledge comes before the trust. To get to know someone, to gain that knowledge, requires trusting the person.

For a more worldly example: To gain the knowledge or the skills that a business has, or that a teacher has, requires trust in them. A devotion of time and energy. A devotion of livelihood. A devotion that comes before the knowledge.

As another example: Doesn't a relationship between mother and child exist before the child comes to realizing or knowing the nature of that relation? Similarly, doesn't a relationship with God exist before a person comes to realize and know it? A relationship exists before the knowledge of it is gained.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

How? It is like a gamble, a risk, except that rather than gambling for personal gain at the expense of unseen others, the gamble is that an unseen other is good at the expense of being wrong.

My point is that this gamble is based on something. Even if only to make blanket statements such as "I will trust everyone" means that we've experienced someone, and decided to behave in the same manner with everyone, and take the gamble. That we see it as a gamble to do so is indicative of our experience of people thus far, and our conjectures about it.

My point is we can't do much except in the light of what we have experienced. We begin experiencing from the time we're in the womb, and all our subsequent decisions, thoughts, etc. are tied up in that which has gone before.

Will you be applying this reasoning to your decision to trust the rest of your life with a newborn child who you have yet to know?

Well, yes. Because what we do when we decide to have a child is that we base our expectations, our thoughts, our feelings about it on what we've experienced before. This is why people read books about babies and pregnancy, talk to other pregnant moms, and so forth. No one exists in isolation in their own mind. We are all basing our thoughts and decisions on what we've previously experienced.

In the case of motor vehicles, I base my reactions (to drive defensively, in my case) on the experiences I've had and read about since I was a kid about motor vehicles. Because I know from these experiences that some drivers are unreliable and that the vehicles can fail (blow out a tire, stall, etc.), I am cautious and I drive in a way that is looking for problems.

In the case of the pilot of an airplane, I have the experience of knowing that they have to be trained before they are hired to fly, and they are tested in this ability. So I am trusting the pilot and, more broadly the airline, based on my experience of how airlines and pilots work. I am still basing it on experience- the experience of those that test the pilots and give them a license. If it didn't work this way, and any random person could try to fly a plane, it would be too much of a gamble to fly... since it is also my experience (directly) that there is a lot involved in flying a plane and you need some training to do it safely.

As for the US, I don't see myself as part of any national group. By virtue of how the world works, I am categorized by others as a citizen of a nation. However, I don't see myself as any nationality. I am just a creature on the earth. That said, I give no special trust to US citizens. People are people. Some are trustworthy and some are not.

But you may NOT have the information, and yet there is still trust.

Personally, I don't trust when I have no information whatsoever. That doesn't seem like a good idea for survival. I don't need to have *direct* experience, but I need to have *some* experience. Without any whatsoever, I am neutral. I neither trust nor do I distrust. I am seeking information.

Do you provide your personal information to strangers so that they can know you and hence trust you, or do you wait until you decide to trust them?

This depends on what you mean by personal information, and my sense of the energy of the stranger. Maybe I'm lucky; I get vibes off people. If I get a vibe that it would be a bad idea to hand out my information, I don't. I trust my experience of the energy of a person. That said, there are people who are rather a battlefield in terms of their capacity for goodness and badness toward me. So, there are still times that I've been deeply hurt. This is what forgiveness is for.

So there is no relationship, no exchange of the pertinent information.

If they are relating, there is a relationship. It just isn't a personal one yet. I have relationships with people I never even see, like my mail carrier. I don't know much about him/her; s/he only knows my address and mail, yet we are in relationship.

I think we're in relationship with all beings, but of course the intimacy varies.

Did Adam and Eve trust God while not having that knowledge? No.

I don't think it was an issue of trust, necessarily. Trust does not automatically lead to obedience. Lots of children trust their parents and still sometimes disobey. They do so for all kinds of reasons- greed, curiosity, and so forth. Distrust is not the same as these other things.

To get to know someone, to gain that knowledge, requires trusting the person.

Not really, at least not today. In the most pragmatic sense, if all we have is a name and a city, we can get to know someone by looking their records up online. Even without remote "getting to know" methods, we can ask people for information without trusting them. We can share information we don't care if someone else knows, which doesn't show trust, it just shows we have some information about ourselves that isn't considered by us to be dangerously intimate.

Heck, we fill out forms all the time for credit cards, stores, pet adoption, doctors, taxes, government agencies... with all kinds of "personal" information and yet we still worry about identity theft and fraud. We don't necessarily trust. We just share what we feel we need or want to and hope the risk is worth the pay-off. We trust our experience of the statistics enough to hope we're not one of the unfortunate ones.

On a less solid level, I trust my experience of people's energy and the flow of reality. This means I do some things that might be considered odd or illogical, such as avoiding a certain street at a certain time. However, I have learned that by honoring this intuition in myself, I avoid more dangers. When I ignore this, I've gotten myself into trouble.

To gain the knowledge or the skills that a business has, or that a teacher has, requires trust in them. A devotion of time and energy. A devotion of livelihood. A devotion that comes before the knowledge.

Yes, but what we are trusting here is not the business or the teacher. We are trusting the experience that these people had to do certain things, pass certain tests, etc. before they got to where they are now. Students trust me because they trust my PhD certificate, not because they trust me. They don't trust me as an individual until they experience me. Until then, they trust the institution- that I have been tested and found to be worth the degree, that their college has been accredited by an organization that says it lives up to certain standards. You see, they are trusting their experience of social organization- not me. If I show up to somewhere with no resume, no PhD, no publications... very few people will trust me as a teacher except those who are very gullible.

Same for businesses- there is a reason why it's hard to get a business started, people want references, and why ebay has the feedback system, we have the BBB, and so forth. People are trusting their experiences of others to inform their decision to trust.

As another example: Doesn't a relationship between mother and child exist before the child comes to realizing or knowing the nature of that relation?

Yes, but the trust doesn't come until that relationship is experienced. The child doesn't necessarily trust the mother, but out of necessity is dependent on her. If she does not care adequately for the infant, the child will not learn to trust her (and, in that case, it frequently screws up the child's ability to trust anyone). The mother doesn't need to trust the child yet in the beginning, because the child is completely helpless. She has total control over how the relationship will progress. Parents trust their children as the children get older based on an informed decision- an experience that this is what other parents do and how society works. Some parents don't trust their kids. This is based either on their experience of their kid being untrustworthy, or on their experience of other people's kids being so (i.e., the parent who reads his teen's diary because other parents caught their kids doing drugs or having sex). It's not like our ideas for trust and mistrust come from nowhere spontaneously. We are born into a matrix of society.

Similarly, doesn't a relationship with God exist before a person comes to realize and know it? A relationship exists before the knowledge of it is gained.

Of course. However, in our decision whether or not to conciously acknowledge it (be theist or atheist), we trust in either our own experience of it (or lack thereof) or that of others' (be it the Bible, a guru, or Richard Dawkins). I don't see how there is a way around our thoughts, feelings, decisions... being guided by experience of the world around us. No man is an island. No one lives in a vacuum.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Personally, I don't trust when I have no information whatsoever. That doesn't seem like a good idea for survival. I don't need to have *direct* experience, but I need to have *some* experience. Without any whatsoever, I am neutral. I neither trust nor do I distrust. I am seeking information.

You have used the word 'trust' here in the way that I have been saying. Here you recognized that trust is independent of information... independent of experience. You choose to not trust until you have *some* experience. You choose to not trust until you have *some* information. Those are your personal choices, and they are not by definition prerequisites to the ability to trust. That is, even per your use of the term.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

My point is we can't do much except in the light of what we have experienced.

Trust can be a matter of doing nothing. Like merely witnessing while someone else does something. It is often a matter of letting someone else take control. However, I can also do things that I have no experience of. Maybe as an experiment to obtain information. A leap forward into the unknown.

As you use the word 'WE'... quite a few times in your post, I think you are verbally assuming a bit of information about other people that you have never personally experienced. Why?

Originally Posted by path_of_one

So, there are still times that I've been deeply hurt.

Per your belief that things must be experienced to be learned and possibly trusted, what use is 'hurt' if you never experience it? I question this definition of hurt... it looks to me like an onion.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

You have used the word 'trust' here in the way that I have been saying. Here you recognized that trust is independent of information... independent of experience.

Personally, I've never seen someone trust independent of any information. My decision not to trust is based on the experience that trusting something about which I have no information is a bad idea. I still can't see how a person can decide something without any information at all. We all automatically have some information, even if it's the information that having no information is a dangerous place to be in.

You choose to not trust until you have *some* experience. You choose to not trust until you have *some* information. Those are your personal choices, and they are not by definition prerequisites to the ability to trust. That is, even per your use of the term.

I suppose. But I have yet to see people trust without having some experience or information. And the decision not to trust is based on our knowledge that you can get hurt doing so. We are informed by our society since the time we are born.

Like merely witnessing while someone else does something.

How is this trust? Trusting them with what? If I'm just witnessing another's actions, that doesn't imply that I've given them trust/control over me.

However, I can also do things that I have no experience of. Maybe as an experiment to obtain information. A leap forward into the unknown.

How do you make the decision to leap into the unknown? What is your thought process behind that decision?

As you use the word 'WE'... quite a few times in your post, I think you are verbally assuming a bit of information about other people that you have never personally experienced. Why?

Because I've studied human cognition and decision-making for some years now, and there are things that humans hold universally as part of that process due to the way their brain and societies are structured and function.

Per your belief that things must be experienced to be learned and possibly trusted, what use is 'hurt' if you never experience it? I question this definition of hurt... it looks to me like an onion.

Of course I experience hurt. I'm not sure what you're getting at- I didn't define it, just said that it happened. That is...

I experience most people as having both good and bad attributes and intentions.
I experience some people as more risky than others.
If I choose to trust the risky ones (or to trust indirect experience of what seems risky), then I have a higher probability of getting hurt (i.e., having a bad interaction or relationship that is detrimental).
Sometimes, that happens.

I'm not sure if that deconstructs the onion or not?

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Personally, I've never seen someone trust independent of any information. My decision not to trust is based on the experience that trusting something about which I have no information is a bad idea. I still can't see how a person can decide something without any information at all. We all automatically have some information, even if it's the information that having no information is a dangerous place to be in.

Whether or not it is a good idea to trust blindly, or to trust with the eyes open and the mind full of information, or to trust despite what the eyes have seen and counter to past experience, since it is possible then 'trust' is not just a physical decision from an analysis of information. Whether or not it is a good idea to trust with no information, bad information, or good information, all three are possible which means that 'trust' is not exactly just a mechanical decision made from available information.

Perhaps from a different perspective: If someone is omniscient, having full knowledge of all things, there would still be trust in others that do not see all. If someone is blind and seeing nothing, there would still be trust in others that do see. With both extremes, either seeing all or seeing nothing, there is still trust.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I suppose. But I have yet to see people trust without having some experience or information. And the decision not to trust is based on our knowledge that you can get hurt doing so. We are informed by our society since the time we are born.

I'm told that scorpions sting and I've seen it in movies and on TV, but I have never personally been stung by a scorpion. In the fable about the Scorpion and the Frog where the frog (or turtle) agrees to the words of the scorpion, but then gets stung and as both are going to die the frog asks, "Why?" The scorpion responds, "I'm a scorpion; it's in my nature." In the fable some information was known ahead of time about the nature of scorpions, and some information was presented by the scorpion and decided upon, and the frog (turtle) did some trusting... yet still someone (both) were hurt. The example seems to fit your belief that it is the experience, or the information, that is decided upon. Or was there information missing? What exactly was trusted and why was it a mistake? What volume of information could have been provided or otherwise obtained to have better informed the frog (turtle)? Even upon being informed of the nature of the scorpion, and maybe even after compiling countless statistics of how and when and why and where a scorpion will sting... couldn't the frog (turtle) still decide to 'trust' the scorpion? Could the scorpion still be forgiven of prior offenses and be trusted with the potential to counter its nature?

Originally Posted by path_of_one

How do you make the decision to leap into the unknown? What is your thought process behind that decision?

I submit that any and all thought processes is more to prevent a person from leaping into the unknown. It is not a necessity to think to trust someone. With a thought process a person is trying to know... right? With trust, and then thought, a person might know. Trust is more an ingredient of getting to know, than a thought process is to Trusting.

I submit that man leaps into the unknown with every single breath. What thought process went into taking the next breath?

I hired a person who leaps into unknowns all too easily. He assumes things. He makes uninformed choices by the seat of his pants, and then claims innocence since he was uninformed. It is a spectacle to see his risk taking... he falls into trouble after trouble by his lack of thought. When he does it there is no decision making. He ignores information. Too much energy to think first. He doesn't want to think and be held responsible for it. He routinely gambles with his own life. Yet to actually TRUST someone else is difficult for this person. To confess or to show weakness to someone else is difficult. To leap into an unknown by himself is apparently easy for him, but to leap into an unknown when someone else tells him to leap... that is difficult for him. Trusting an unknown and exhibiting risky behavior is easy for him, as long as that unknown is not another person. Why? If it were a mere scorpion he would play with it and get stung. If the scorpion asked him to do something and said, 'Trust me'... he would find it nearly impossible. Why?

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Whether or not it is a good idea to trust with no information, bad information, or good information, all three are possible which means that 'trust' is not exactly just a mechanical decision made from available information.

I never said that it was. I don't think human decision-making is mechanical at all. I just said that decisions to do anything are based on our perceptions of our situation, which is to say- the information and experience we have. We can choose any variety of ways to respond, but we respond in response to stimulus. We're not just responding without any experience of the world around us at all.

I'm told that scorpions sting and I've seen it in movies and on TV, but I have never personally been stung by a scorpion.

That's why I was saying that people either trust their own experience or the experiences of others. We all get our information from somewhere, whether from our own lives or from what other people tell us. Some people choose to trust the former, some the latter, some try to meld it together, some claim a higher insight from God, etc. The point is- no matter how we are making our decisions, we're basing those decisions on something- some perception of what is going on. Which is information, obtained through some sort of experience.

That we sometimes trust the potential of someone over their past actions does not mean we are not responding to experience or information. We have experienced and perceived potentiality, and choose this over actuality. It's still information we have- that there is a potentiality at all is a response to our experience or cultural conditioning of its existence.

I submit that any and all thought processes is more to prevent a person from leaping into the unknown. It is not a necessity to think to trust someone.

Sorry, but yes, it is. I'm not talking about critical thinking. I'm just talking about thought. The only things we as humans seem to do that is not tied to some sort of conscious thought on some level is our involuntary muscle reactions and such. Trust is a thought and feeling. Leaping into the unknown is a choice. People might make this choice at a sub-conscious level and fail to critically think (i.e., your worker, it seems) but it is still thought. Their muscles aren't propelling them to these actions all on their own.

With a thought process a person is trying to know... right?

I mean it more literally. A thought process is any process that leads a person from some sort of conscious or subconscious brain activity into directed action. They might be trying to know or trying to avoid knowledge, but it is still a choice they are making at some conscious level. It isn't the same type of response as your heart pumping and gut moving food around.

I submit that man leaps into the unknown with every single breath. What thought process went into taking the next breath?

That's poetic and lovely, but not really practical or accurate. We breathe without conscious choice, though we can raise our breathing to a state of consciousness or mindfulness whereby we can control it. We do not choose to be reckless, like your worker, as a matter of course. Everything outside our involuntary bodily functions is grounded in some choice, some decision, that we make, whether we choose to be fully conscious of it or not.

Trusting an unknown and exhibiting risky behavior is easy for him, as long as that unknown is not another person. Why?

Probably because we generally (as a species) have control needs and feel more comfortable with our own mistakes, since we feel in control of them. The mistakes of others are a big wild card.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Trust is a thought and feeling.

You think so...
Trust is placed in the unknown of another person's thoughts and feelings, and whatever or whoever chooses them.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

People might make this choice at a sub-conscious level and fail to critically think (i.e., your worker, it seems) but it is still thought.

I think and I thought... a matter of present and past tense. No?

Originally Posted by path_of_one

A thought process is any process that leads a person from some sort of conscious or subconscious brain activity into directed action.

Trust then is an action directed by someone else's thought process.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Probably because we generally (as a species) have control needs and feel more comfortable with our own mistakes, since we feel in control of them. The mistakes of others are a big wild card.

Yes... control. Trust is a matter of giving control. Take a chance.