The English language offers us a family of words to define, describe and communicate the construct we call Truth.
Some of the words English speakers use the most are:
First, we begin with the idea that the words listed above are human centric. Outside of human centric is a construct we call “What Is” – Matter:Energy.
We use the Y Person model and the comprehensive Y Worlds Models to consider anything human centric.
Suppose a tree falls in the forest.
If no human detects this event, it becomes “what is” until a human enters the picture.
Corporal Subconscious Conscious
If our person sees the tree fall, the event is processed and enters the corporal being.
It becomes a signal if recognized subconsciously. It remains noise if not recognized subconsciously.
It becomes a point of information if it is processed consciously. It becomes knowledge if it is stored or connected for future use.
What happens next makes this interesting.
Do others believe this person when the story of the tree falling is told? Why? The details of “What Is” such as the type of tree and where and when the tree fell, open the door to greater complexity. Explaining why the tree fell brings the story fully into the world of systemic complexity. The implications and meaning of the falling tree require complex systemic forecasting.
Without going into detail, we can use the Y Person model to represent what a person senses, what they know, how they know it, and through what organizational schema do they make sense of it all.
We can then use what we call a Proof Process to compare what is going on within that person to an objective third party perspective that considers everything pertinent, every relevant viewpoint, every piece of evidence and understanding, and every way to explore the alignment between what is going on within that person to what happened with the tree.
If the person lied about sensing the tree falling, it means in our models that the person DID sense and remember the tree falling, but their intent was not NETS based, and their choice was to not accurately describe what they knew to be fully valid.
If the person heard what they thought was a tree falling but did not witness it, and said definitively that a tree had fallen, we call that a process lie. A Proof Process to determine the person’s processing accuracy associated with the speculation would need to be undertaken, along with a Proof Process of “What Is” – a full processing of the scene of the tree, of all evidence, and of all knowledge pertinent to the confirmation that indeed a tree had fallen, and whether the sound of the tree falling was or was not the specific tree that had been identified.
If the witness to the sound, instead of speculating about the link between the sound and the fact that a tree fell, conducted the full Proof Process themselves, and offered a level of uncertainty and a systemic evaluation of the entire palette of information, then that person could be regarded as truthful, accurate, honest, factual and trustworthy. If the witness plugged their ears and covered their eyes so they could not sense the falling tree, or any of the systemic context, that would be a process lie.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it is noise in a world of human signal. But if the tree falls on a critical power line grid and causes a catastrophe affecting millions of people, it becomes signal and begins the complex process of thought focused on a falling tree, its cause and consequences.
If that falling tree was instead a major environmental cause of disease, a major contributor to global warming, a major reason jobs are rapidly decomposing or the single preventable cause of hundreds of billions of dollars spinning in closed cycles of uselessness, then we must face a painful truth. A process lie is a true lie.