# Evolution is not a process. Evolution is Time driving Matter forward. **URL:** \ **Category:** Science and Technology\ **Created:** [September 11, 2020, 6:25pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/evolution-is-not-a-process-evolution-is-time-driving-matter-forward/7534 "2020-09-11T18:25:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![citizenschallengev3](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/citizenschallengev3/32/17_2.png) [@citizenschallengev3](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev3)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2020, 11:06am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/evolution-is-not-a-process-evolution-is-time-driving-matter-forward/7534/21 "2020-09-18T11:06:43Z")
Tru dat. I do appreciate both of you are “on my side” - I also appreciate that both of you are very intelligent and thoughtful, and that serious challenges are the only ones worth spending time on. Which is why I take your critique seriously and give it a lots of thought, and push back - and we’re probably not through with this discussion. 😉 I hope.   It’s very much appreciated, since I much prefer serious critique to coddling or patronizing, which is for dogs and kids, not serious humans in an unforgiving world… ---
**Author:** ![write4u](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/write4u/32/23410_2.png) [@write4u](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/write4u)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2021, 3:41am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/evolution-is-not-a-process-evolution-is-time-driving-matter-forward/7534/22 "2021-08-12T03:41:50Z")
> [@citizenschallengev3](#): > > Keep in mind “survival of the fittest” only covers one aspect of Evolution. > > Often factors besides “fitness” tipped the scales and even the fittest during the best of times are sometimes ruthlessly mowed down, leaving room for the wimps to evolve the new fitness, if environmental conditions were conducive. If not, something else showed up to try. I agree with the entire summation except for your conclusion. Do you consider Time a form of energy? AFAIK, only energy is causal to dynamical change and time is the measurement of duration of that change, i.e. Time is a passive temporal phenomenon. Time is not causal, it is an emergent accounting of duration. I really have trouble seeing any other way. ---
**Author:** ![write4u](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/write4u/32/23410_2.png) [@write4u](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/write4u)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2021, 4:10am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/evolution-is-not-a-process-evolution-is-time-driving-matter-forward/7534/23 "2021-08-12T04:10:18Z")
> [@citizenschallengev3](#): > > Discovering and characterizing neural correlates does not offer a theory of consciousness Is there a theory of “wetness” from the correlates of H2O., or is wetness an emergent property of a specific pattern of H2O molecules? ---
**Author:** ![citizenschallengev4](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/citizenschallengev4/32/28718_2.png) [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2021, 2:43pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/evolution-is-not-a-process-evolution-is-time-driving-matter-forward/7534/24 "2021-08-22T14:43:34Z")
> [@timb](#): > > I recognize that you (Cc) accept that too, but you sometimes seem to skirt the line, in your implications. And I accept your reason for your project of establishing a language that might be more effective in countering the LIE-Believers in our world. I miss Tim and ∏ for that matter. Driving from Columbia, MO to Nashville yesterday I was listening to Antonio Damasio’s: “Self Comes to Mind - Constructing the Conscious Brain.” Mind blowing book, it’s actually the second listen through and I’m painfully aware of how much I miss, I wish there were a continuing education course, it’s the only way to truly digest something like this, with an instructor going over it chapter by chapter, with a lively class discussion. But alas, doing best I can with what I have, so skimming what can off the surface for now - I do intend to get the book for when I have more time to actually sit down with it. Running through this thread’s dialogue one thing I noticed _(besides some spot on critique)_ is that “consciousness” comes out as a one sided affair. Consciousness as a possession. But in actuality, our consciousness is a reflection of our body’s physical processes interacting with an outside reality. Our Mind is the inside of us in action. Brings us right back to that under appreciated truism that, ‘an organism cannot be understand without understanding its environment,’ it exists within. What is consciousness, without something to be conscious of? Point being is that constant interaction between a “consciousness” and the Physical Reality it is embedded within _(that is inside the body and outside body)_ needs to be taken into account when discussing ‘consciousness.’ I do remember being really fascinated by Damasio discussing the various levels of human consciousness and thinking how I needed to cull some of that and share it with W4U since we’ve be debating it and I think he’s limited by his On Off perspective, that won’t hold up to Damasio’s explication. (but that will have to wait W. 🙂 ) * * * > **[“Self Comes to Mind,” - What Was I Thinking?](https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/books/review/Block-t.html)** > By Ned Block,. Nov. 26, 2010 > > In “Self Comes to Mind,” …, “knowledge of one’s own existence and of the existence of surroundings.” > > That is certainly one kind of consciousness, what one might call self-consciousness. But there is also a different kind, as anyone who knows what it is like to have a headache, taste chocolate or see red can attest. > > Self-consciousness is a sophisticated and perhaps uniquely human cognitive achievement. > Phenomenal consciousness by contrast — what it is like to _experience_ — is something we share with many animals. A person who is drunk or delirious or dreaming can be excruciatingly conscious without being wakeful, self-aware or aware of his surroundings. > > The term “conscious” was first introduced into academic discourse by the Cambridge philosopher Ralph Cudworth in 1678, and by 1727, John Maxwell had distinguished five senses of the term. The ambiguity has not abated. > > Damasio’s distinctive contributions in “Self Comes to Mind” are an account of phenomenal consciousness, a conception of self­consciousness and, most controversially, a claim that phenomenal consciousness is dependent on self-consciousness. … [Previous page](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/evolution-is-not-a-process-evolution-is-time-driving-matter-forward/7534.md?page=1)