I was sitting here trying to come up with a sufficient psychological argument to disagree with your post but the more I started to analyze your thinking the more it started to make some level of sense to me.
If you are trying to say that this "trust" is the determination of the validity (whether correct or incorrect ) of whatever stimuli the organism is receiving and reacting to at that particular moment which may or may not generate an emotional response based upon the organisms belief (real or imagined) that their needs (real or imagined) are or are not being met at that particular time then I guess I'll have to agree with you to some degree.
If you hit a dog repeatedly over time it will eventually cower every time you raise your hand and might even whimper in fear. SO the dog trusts (firmly believes) that this particular visual stimulus which has always been followed by a painful stimuli in the past is most likely going to cause the same painful stimuli at that moment.
But, then again does a newborn baby need to trust or believe that being spanked actually hurts to wrinkle its face up and start crying when it gets smacked after being removed from the womb?
There may be some level of immediate determination of the validity of the stimuli which leads the child to determine without a doubt that it is a negative physical experience but I don't think I would call that "trust."
Darn, now I'm trying to disprove you again.
Never mind.
I think I'm a little too emotional right now to have a rational thought.
Maybe I really believe that.
Maybe I can put my trust in that.
But what happens when trust is violated?
Strong emotions result.
What if I really don't believe anything is real like the Quantum Physicists?
How can I trust anything to have an emotion at all?
Just kidding. ;=)
Do you trust that?
Did it make you smile, laugh or frown?
What does that mean?
