Human psychology for the most part has not exactly been an exact science. However, a large part of human (and non-human) psychology can be described through exact means. The human psyche can be split and modeled into a number of macro components, of which some of these components can be modeled through exact means. Through the principle of ‘black boxing’, those components that don’t let themselves be described in an exact fashion (yet) can still take part in the overall model for the human psyche. This paper focuses on a few of these components, of which one can be modeled in an exact fashion. One of these components described is the truth tree. Another macro component, mentioned but not (yet) discussed on its own, is the emotional disk.
The primary purpose of this paper is to present the definition of what actually is ‘truth’ and to convey the level of importance of the ‘truth-tree’ component, and through it, make accessible and understandable everything involving the consuming of, being subject to, and acting up on doctrine. It will help understand why people act the way they do. It will help understand certain mental conditions such as cognitive dissonance and it can help an individual and groups to better realize the importance of being responsible about doctrine for the individual and groups. Further, it will help the recognition of both beneficial and malevolent doctrine and the corresponding mental acting of human beings.
Truth… what is truth? It is a phenomena that is spoken of a lot and makes its occurrence almost anywhere in our daily lives. Since truth is the elementary principle for this website and blog, it will be useful to discuss first the principle of ‘truth’. Not only forms truth the basis for this website and its content, it is also an extremely essential principle when it comes to understanding what truth means to people and how it affects people. First off, I will tell you the definition of truth. It is a definition that I formulated after years of developing a model of truth in relation to the human psyche. This model of the truth principle, and its effect and importance to the human psyche will be explained in the sections below. First however, the definition of…. ‘truth’:
Truth is the term used for information that meets a set of conditions defined and evaluated by sentient beings.
Yes, in essence, information is considered a ‘truth’ when it meets a defined set of conditions. When a condition to be evaluated is met, we declare the information to be ‘true’. When a condition is not met, we declare the information to be ‘false’. Outcomes of conditions are asked for in the form of questions where the answer to a question would be either an affirmation or a denial. Example: “Is your car blue?” Here, the question conveys the condition for evaluation by the owner of the car. The condition being conveyed is the equation between the color of the car and the color blue. If the condition is met, the owner will say “.. yes, that is true”, or “.. no, it is white” if the condition is not met. Here the owner states the condition is not met and at the same time provides the color that would make the condition evaluate to ‘true’ and be met if the color being compared to would be changed into ‘white’.
This example demonstrates two people involved, one asking a question and the other answering the question. If there were no sentient beings to be asking questions, would ‘truth’ still be a phenomena? The answer to that would be ‘no’. Without someone to ask questions, things just are. The car would be white without anyone ever asking for the color of the car. That is why truth is a phenomena only when sentient beings having the capability to evaluate conditions are involved, which humans most definitely are.
Since we, as humans, are beings that ask questions with almost everything, we can safely state that ‘truth’ is an integral phenomena to our existence.
Since the evaluation of a single condition can either satisfy or not, one can say that the outcome of such evaluation is a binary (= two) outcome. However, most of the time, if not practically all of the time, answering a question with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ is not that easy! Especially if one can not make up one’s mind. Well, this consideration gives it away already: we tend to evaluate many conditions in order to come to a single affirmative or denying answer. An example of this would be where someone would wonder whether their friend loves them or not. Some questions might be answered with a ‘yes’, while other questions would have ‘no’ for an answer. Such person would suffer mixed feelings for they could not tell one way or another. The more individual questions would be answered with a ‘yes’, the more inclined that person would be to answer ‘yes’ to the question ‘Do you think your friend loves you?’. And thus, even though the outcome of an evaluation is a binary answer, the fact that we as humans evaluate hundreds of conditions in the form of questions both consciously and subconsciously makes life most certainly not simple and all that binary! In theory, an infinite amount of conditions could be evaluated.
The ‘truth-tree’ is the prime component in this model of the human psyche. The ‘truth-tree’ basically constitutes all the direct and derived truths drawn from all of the experiences and knowledge within the memory of an individual. Some examples of this would be the information about a location (experience), the information about a language (knowledge) or the information about an event from the past (memories). As the introduction to ‘truth’ explained, a ‘truth’ is information that meets conditions. One could ask, ‘Have you visited the Eiffel Tower?’ Someone who visited the location would reply with a ‘yes’. It’s a truth to this person. Or, one could ask, ‘Is “liefde” the correct spelling for “love” in Dutch?’ A Dutch person would answer with a ‘yes’. It is a truth to that person. So yes, technically, we can evaluate any conditions against all of the information in our beings, stored as memories and yield truths, and conversely, untruths from it.
The reason why the component is called a ‘truth-tree’ is because truths enable derivative truths and conversely, untruths. An example here is the question, ‘If I let go of this apple, will it fall to the ground?’. The answer here would be ‘yes’. It is a derivative truth, because the underlying reason that would make this true are the laws of gravity. This factual truth could be asked for with the question ‘Does earth pull objects towards it?’. Again, the answer would be ‘yes’. This way, you can even drill down the tree of truths until you get neck-deep into the science of physics. Pretty much anyone will have these basic truths in their truth-trees as Earth’s gravity is experienced rather early in life.
The importance here is to realize that a truth-tree is individual and personal. Common truths that many people share are in fact copies of these common truths in people’s individual truth-trees. That is what makes them common.
A ‘truth-tree’ isn’t just truths. It encompasses and includes all the information that these truths can be derived from. That is why this model makes it a lot easier to convey matter surrounding doctrine. The model has two more derivative terms:
- The Truth Branch
The ‘truth-branch’ is the term one can use to denote parts of a truth-tree. If one needs to describe a set of information in relation to a larger set of information, this term can be used. Although, referring to the truth-branch as a truth-tree on its own is just as fine.
- The Truth Forest
When a group of people is looked at as a group of truth-trees, one can collectively label these as a ‘truth-forest’. This enables expressions such as ‘The truth-forest of this religion spans the globe.’
So far, the concept of ‘truth’ was discussed without further context, although with the examples used in previous paragraphs, these contexts were implied without further explanation. As explained before, information becomes a ‘truth’ when a certain set of conditions are met. The different contexts for truths in essence each describe a set of specific preconditions that the information has to adhere to, for it to be classified as a truth in that context. The different contexts are listed below:
For a truth to be classified as ‘reality’, the information must adhere to a number of conditions. The first condition is that every bit of information used that has a basis in the physical world, must adhere to the laws and rules of the physical world. The word ‘physical’ doesn’t just denote observable, touchable matter. It denotes everything that makes up our universe, including phenomena unseen. An example of this would be magnetic fields. And not in the least, even phenomena that science has yet to uncover and describe. It doesn’t matter whether the information conveys past events, current events or events to come.
And that introduces the next condition. When the physical world across the timeline is seen as an endless series of video frames, it can then be said that the information conveyed must exactly match with the relevant series of frames of the physical world. When a security camera records a burglar entering a building and leaving again with office equipment, these physical world frames are actually turned into video frames. This condition applies to historic information up to the point in time we call “now”.
This condition does not apply to information that conveys future truths since those frames have yet to occur. The first condition must still hold up though; the information must comply to the rules of the physical world. When someone says “Tonight it will be dark.”, it is still a reality. Even though it describes a future event, the information conveyed is still a reality. After all, the laws of physics together with the physical state of the Sun and Earth dictate that the location of the person will be shrouded in darkness. This is because the word “tonight” suggests a moment in time where the Sun no longer illuminates the location the person is at.
So far, information relating to the physical world was looked at. When it comes to people and their minds, an additional condition applies. In one way, people and their minds are still covered by the conditions above – the bio-physical state of a brain falls under the rule of the physical world as much as anything else physical. However, people do or don’t do things for a reason. Whether it is action or talk. In the world of humans, many reasons may be attributed to a cause for these actions or words.
When people speak of ‘truth’ or ‘the truth’ in its general form, they in actuality always refer to ‘reality’ unless suggested otherwise.
The additional condition here is that when reasons and motives are involved in the information conveyed, the reasons and motives conveyed must be the primary reasons and motives for the information to be ‘reality’. The next section on Alternative Truth will describe this in detail.
As written in the section about reality above, a truth involving human intent is only reality when it is a primary intent. However, when a person wants to conceal the primary intent for any sort of undertaking, or alternatively, wants to present a different perception of something, the person may employ an ‘alternative truth’. This is demonstrated by the following example:
There is this woman that always visits a certain smoke store. They have a new male employer. The woman has seen him a few times at the counter and begun liking him and wants to meet him more often. Now there’s the day she’s not quite out of smokes yes. She’s about to leave and while opening the door, her husband asks, “Where are you going honey?”. She says, “Oh, I’m going to get smokes.”. Her husband says, “But, you have two more packs left.”. She answers, “Yes, I just want to make sure I don’t run out too fast.”. And her husband answers, “Okay..”.
In this scenario, wanting to see the shop employee has become her primary intent. Getting the smokes has now become a secondary intent. However, it is presented to her husband as a primary intent, with a reason that ought to be credible enough for the husband to not suspect another reason. The husband has been told an alternative truth and not reality. The reason why it is not a lie is because she still returns home with new smokes that can be explained by the reason she gave. However, it’s just not been the primary reason and hence it is called an alternative truth.
The scenario described above is from the perspective of a person themselves with the purpose to conceal primary intent. There is another scenario, and that’s where someone else presents a truth surrounding a factoid that is not reality. An example could be an artist that has become adept at creating paintings of a certain style that people love:
A rival artist that isn’t doing so well as the first artist may say to that artist’s friends: “He’s just in it for the money! He’s a greed! You don’t want to associate with someone like that now?”. One friend says “You got that wrong. Painting is his passion and he likes to see people enjoy his work.”. “But, look at that new car he bought!”, the rival says. The friend answers. “His old one broke down after 15 years.”. One can imagine this quarrel could go on for a little, likely having people end up walking away from each other. Here, the rival artist wants to paint (pun?) black the other and does so by stating an alternative truth surrounding the factoid of a decent income for the first artist while suggesting a another alternative truth as a reason for his claim, using another factoid: the new car. The friend rebukes them with reality about the first artist, the primary intent being genuine passion and the need to replace a broken car.
People generally do not speak of an alternative truth. People simply call it a ‘lie’. However, since a rebuke could provide reality (the car) as a reason to make the alternative truth (greed) credible, it is labeled an alternative truth since within its presentation, it can still be supported by physical reality: The income is a reality and the new car is a reality. It’s just that the alternative truths suggested by the rival artist are not the first artist’s primary reasons, and no motivations to begin with. That’s why such scenarios often yield arguments over whether a purported truth is a lie or not when realities that could support either way are a basis within arguments.
When information speaks of a motivation behind a reality, which is not the primary motivation for that reality, the information conveying the motivation is classified an alternative truth.
A truth is classified a ‘lie’ when any of the conditions for information to be a ‘reality’ are not met. If the example of the woman going out for smokes would be used, her statement about not wanting to run out of smokes too fast would be a lie when she would return home without having bought new smokes. Her statement in that case does not transform into a reality, nor is the motivation given an alternative truth any more. The motivation then also becomes a lie.
When information no longer meets any conditions that classify information as reality while an attempt is made to present it as reality, it is classified a ‘lie’.
The ‘illusion’ is information that conveys a truth-tree consisting of any combinations of reality, alternative truths and lies. Since an illusion as a whole is not reality, reasons for any of the truths within must be fabricated in order to make the illusion credible. The more credible the reasons the better an illusion can be passed off as a reality. The quality of reasoning thus determines the quality of the illusion. When information within the illusion can be validated by other people, builders of an illusion want to avoid lies and stick to alternative truths instead, as they are most often still based on realities. When people can not validate information for themselves, builders of the illusion will not shy away from using lies to further build their illusions.
A ‘hypothesis’ is a postulated truth-tree not backed by reality, though not intended to be an alternative truth or a lie. These truths are presented as a possible reality that may or may not match up with reality. It is a truth-tree mostly used for discussion purposes as well as decision analysis.
In language, we use the past tense of ‘can’ / ‘will’ in conjunction with the verb ‘to be’ to denote a hypothesis: ‘He could have been there (or not).’ A hypothesis is, in essence no more than a truth-tree that has not yet been validated. This could be a reconstructed possible motive behind a crime; or a scientific postulate to be proven.
The ‘primary truth’ is formed by an individual’s primary truth-tree. This truth-tree is comprised of reality, alternative truths and illusions and it is perceived by the individual’s consciousness and subconsciousness as reality. It is called this way for a very important reason. It is the truth-tree one acts and lives by, both consciously as well as subconsciously, unlike a hypothesis which generally is not acted upon unless consciously intended. One’s primary truth-tree is extended by various types of indoctrination. These are firsthand experiences, concepts taught and otherwise transferred through communication between people. For instance, when a hypothesis or parts thereof are proven true, and differentially, parts proven untrue, is that these truths are then ‘committed’ to one’s primary truth, after which the individual begins to act upon the newly assumed truths. When an individual adopts alternative truths or illusions being passed off as reality, these become a reality to that person while in reality, these are alternative truths and illusions. These branches of one’s primary truth-tree can then be classified as ‘corruption’. It is discussed further in the Temporal Truth Tree section. How the primary truth-tree impacts human behavior is further discussed in the section that describes the Primal System.
A ‘delusion’ is a primary truth branch that consists of a willfully created illusion. When people create illusions, for instance, perceptions of other people they want to convey as a reality, they commit these illusions to their primary truth-trees. They do this to ensure subconscious reactions to exterior events like questions still make them convey the illusion rather than reality. An illusion needs conscious effort to be maintained. An off-guard question could make a person answer with reality rather than the intended illusion. When one assumes the illusion to be their primary truth, they will no longer need conscious effort to keep up the illusion, where the illusion would be conveyed as an answer to an off-guard question. This is where the illusion to that person has become delusion. A state of delusion can be willfully employed for malevolent purposes but it can also be employed in an attempt to solve cognitive dissonance where the illusion is a mere creation that serves as a means to solve conflicting truths in one’s primary truth-tree. Whether the intent is, to make an illusion a primary truth, for nefarious purposes or beneficial purposes, people employing delusions can be classified as ‘delusional’. This will be further discussed in the section Mental Conditions.
Retro-application is the process of changing a truth in one’s primary truth-tree. This could be a minor change, like ownership of a lighter: ‘That’s not your lighter, it’s mine. You left yours at your friend’s place.’. But it could also be a significant, major change: ‘Your father is not your biological father. You have been adopted.’. Updating all derivative truths may take time and mental effort from the individual depending on the significance and depth of the new truth within the primary truth-tree and may be a very emotional process. Because of this, people will not always immediately accept a new truth and may in actually just flat out refuse to accept a new truth. This is because the process of retro-application initially causes an unstable primary truth-tree as truths are no longer coherent and inter-validating until the process has completed into a new coherent inter-validating truth. The process may temporarily lead to cognitive dissonance and a sense of insecurity until conflicting truths are resolved.
When a number of people are involved, their truths may or may not be the same. The following example demonstrates this. It is an example where three people set an appointment for a meeting. The leader sets a date and time, in agreement with the other two people. At that point, all three people have the same primary truth with regards to the appointment. If one asks them all, “Is the appointment next week Saturday at 2 p.m.?”, they would all answer ‘yes’ to the question. Their truths are synchronized. Now, the leader decides the meeting should be the Sunday after. The leader then tries to call both people to tell them the new date. The first picks up the phone; however the other doesn’t. The leader also forgets trying to call the other at a later time to update the other. The primary truths between these three people are now dis-synchronized with regards to the appointment. What would then happen on Saturday and on Sunday? Yes. One person would show up on Saturday and wonder where the other two people are. The person might start calling the others and find out the meeting was rescheduled to the day after and may grumble a bit over having not been updated. But now that the person synchronized their primary truth once more with the other two, all sorts out and they all meet up on Sunday. As this example shows, dis-synchronized truths between people can cause a lot of problems where people are involved. Henceforth, people generally try to keep their primary truths synchronized that pertain to involvement with multiple people like team settings.
[To be written]
- Write Access and Denial
[To be written]
[To be written]
[To be written]
- Raising and Education
[To be written]
- Puberty and Maturity
[To be written]
- Group Binding
[To be written]
- Majority Truth
[To be written]
- Minority Truth
[To be written]
- Truth Forest Responsibility and Integrity
[To be written]
[To be written]
The Active Thought Process (ATP) is what one would refer to as the ‘Consciousness’. It is the part of your being that you’d regard to be ‘You’. Your feelings and desires to communicate manifest as lingual strings in your mind using your learnt vocabulary. From then the difference between thinking and speaking is merely whether one would, in addition to the ATP, exert motor control to actually speak. The ATP is also one’s prime mechanic to employ exact logic. The ATP however, is NOT your complete ‘you’, your complete being.
[To be written]
[To be written]