(pointing at grass) "This is red."
This would be considered a lie because the impression of sense data designated in language as "red" is not the common conception of the color of grass.
This is really, really simple. I'm essentially just making it dense in language just in case I need to get really specific about certain ideas later on.
Another simple idea is that a contradiction is essentially two qualifying statements that don't allow each other to exist regarding the same condition. However, it is less simple when we consider a person who has said two things over time regarding something that can potentially change. For example, if I say "I love you" and it is currently satisfying the conception of what it means for that to be true - and later, I say that I don't - what essentially needs to happen for this not to be a contradiction, and therefore a lie, is new information (and therefore time). Without any new information, you cannot qualify any further conditions, and therefore, you have contradicted yourself.
Now, this gets pretty vague. It could be said that "information" is something that we are constantly gaining as we perceive. Still, the idea that new information is necessary for a contradiction to be potentially legitimate can be important, because it is sometimes necessary to pinpoint where the information lapse occurred in order to realize a legitimate contradiction. It is especially helpful when you realize someone is having trouble pinpointing
the new information - it implies that either the person is less apt to finding new information that they have received ( and is likely less intelligent, but haven't worked that out yet ) or that there is no new information concerning the subject specifically (that the person is aware of). The awareness might be important, as it could be said that a subconscious deliberation can lead to a contradiction, but this is only legitimate in statements of mentality rather than physical observations.
