top of page
EU Eye

Tiime Copy

LegendL

11 sty 2026

​


ViBeFX


22:24 (18 minutes ago)



to me

The Evolution of Consciousness and Time in Human Thought

Ancient Foundations: Mind and Time in Eastern and Greek Thought

Human reflections on consciousness and time trace back to our oldest philosophies. In the Eastern traditions of ancient India, sages of the Upanishads taught that the ultimate reality Brahman is pure, infinite consciousness – timeless and transcendent. The individual self, Atman, was said to be one with this cosmic consciousness, veiled only by illusion (Maya). In Advaita Vedanta, all of existence is seen as “pure consciousness of unfathomable power,” and the human mind’s inability to fully grasp it is due to our sensory limitations. Thus, Eastern thought often portrayed everyday reality (including the flow of time) as an illusion or transient appearance, with true consciousness existing beyond time’s constraints. By contrast, the Buddha’s teachings in India (6th–5th century BCE) denied any permanent self; instead, the person is a ever-changing flow of mental and physical phenomena. All things, including one’s consciousness, arise and pass in a stream of momentary events – a view resonant with the idea of impermanence (anicca) and the emptiness (śūnyatā) of enduring essence. This Buddhist notion of mindstream sees life as a continuum of thought-moments rather than a fixed soul – a concept that intriguingly anticipates modern psychology’s view of a continuous yet ever-changing mind.

 

In the West, the ancient Greeks likewise grappled with the nature of mind and time. Early Greek cosmology often imagined time as eternal and cyclic, with events repeating in great cycles. Formal philosophy began in the 6th–5th century BCE with a debate on time’s reality: Heraclitus famously declared that “everything flows,” seeing all existence (time included) as constant change. “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man,” he observed, portraying reality as flux and every moment as unique. In stark opposition, Parmenides argued that change and the passage of time are illusions – that true reality is timeless, uniform, and unchanging. This ancient disagreement foreshadowed a philosophical dichotomy that persists to this day: is time a flowing dynamic of present moments, or are past and future equally “real” in a timeless existence? (Contemporary physics echoes these ideas as “A-theory” vs. “B-theory” of time.) Greek thinkers also distinguished two faces of time. They used chronos to mean quantitative, sequential time and kairos for the qualitative, opportune moment. This duality recognized that objective time (the ticking clock) differs from subjective time (the “right moment” felt by the soul). In practice, Greek culture often emphasized kairos – the wisdom of timeliness. Philosophers like Socrates and Aristotle taught that living well meant doing the right thing at the right time, implying that time’s meaning emerges through the subjective consciousness of context and opportunity.

 

Crucially, classical Greek thought tied the existence of time itself to the mind. Aristotle argued that time is essentially the measure of change, and it requires a soul to do the measuring. “Whether if soul did not exist time would exist or not, is a question that may fairly be asked,” he wrote; for if no consciousness is there to count moments, can there truly be time?. In Aristotle’s view, change might occur, but “if there cannot be someone to count there cannot be anything that can be counted” – implying time as we know it would not exist without a conscious knower. Plato, too, linked mind and time: in his cosmology (Timaeus), time was the “moving image of eternity,” a created reflection of the eternal realm, discerned by the world-soul. Thus, both Eastern and Greek antiquity hinted at a profound unity between consciousness and time: either by casting ultimate consciousness as beyond time, or by suggesting time is defined by the observing mind.

Soul and Time in Medieval and Enlightenment Thought

As philosophical and spiritual thought evolved, so did conceptions of the mind’s place in time. Early Christian thinkers, embracing a linear history from Creation to Apocalypse, shifted cultural consciousness toward linear time – a one-way narrative with a beginning and an end, unlike the cyclic time of older traditions. St. Augustine of Hippo (4th century CE) offered remarkable introspective insights bridging ancient and modern views. In his Confessions, Augustine asked, “What is time then? If nobody asks me, I know; but if I were desirous to explain it, plainly I do not know.”. Struggling to define time, he concluded that past and future have no concrete reality except in the mind: “There are three times: a time present of things past; a time present of things present; and a time present of things future.” In other words, the past lives in our memory, the present is our direct experience, and the future exists as expectation. All three “times” coexist in consciousness itself. Augustine’s insight that time is a distension of the mind (with memory and anticipation stretching the present) was a seminal recognition of subjective time consciousness in Western thought. As one modern analysis notes, he essentially identified the mind’s ability to “travel” in time – to recall the past and envision the future – as “the heart of consciousness” long before psychology would coin terms like chronesthesia or “mental time travel”.

 

By the Enlightenment of the 17th–18th centuries, debates about mind and time took on a more analytical form. René Descartes (17th c.) famously split mind and matter into two different substances (mind as thinking res cogitans, and body as material res extensa). In doing so he elevated conscious thought as the proof of existence – “I think, therefore I am.” This Cogito ergo sum declared that the thinking self is the one indubitable reality. Descartes’ dualism implied that mind, as a non-material thinking thing, does not occupy space or time the way matter does. His vision allowed a mechanistic clockwork universe (governed by mathematical laws of motion in time) on one hand, and a soul or consciousness on the other hand, potentially independent of that physical time. Indeed, Descartes hoped that proving mind and body are distinct would rationally support the soul’s immortality – existence outside physical time. Around the same time, Isaac Newton defined time as an absolute, flowing uniformly everywhere, “mathematical time” that “of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external.” This absolute time became a cornerstone of classical science – a single universal clock for the cosmos. Under the Newtonian paradigm, time and space were the fixed stage on which material events played out, while the human mind was increasingly seen as a kind of rational spectator capable of understanding the clockwork laws.

 

Yet other Enlightenment thinkers began locating time and consciousness not in the heavens but in human experience. John Locke saw personal identity as rooted in continuity of consciousness – our sense of self persists via memory of past experiences. David Hume pushed this further, skeptically arguing that we have no actual impression of a constant self. We are, he suggested, “nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity”. In Hume’s empiricist view, the mind is like a theater where perceptions flash one after another, moment to moment, giving an illusion of unity. By denying any permanent soul beneath the changing mental states, Hume echoed the Buddhist-like notion that continuity is a construct of the mind – that consciousness is a flowing stream and any sense of an enduring self (or a flowing time) is an imaginative leap. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant then revolutionized the understanding of space, time, and mind. In his Critique of Pure Reason (1781), Kant argued that time and space are not external things-in-themselves but forms of sensibility – the innate mental framework through which we perceive phenomena. According to Kant, the human mind imposes temporal and spatial order on the raw data of experience; we never know “time itself,” only time as structured by our intuition. “Space and time are not real but ideal: they exist in our minds rather than in reality,” as one summary puts it of Kant’s doctrine. This bold proposal meant that the consciousness of time is built into us a priori – a precondition for experience. Kant thereby synthesized earlier ideas: like Aristotle, he made time dependent on the observing mind, yet like Newton he still treated time as universal for human observers (since all our minds share the same temporal intuitions).

The Industrial and Scientific Revolutions: Clocks, Evolution, and the Inner Stream

The 19th century brought profound changes in both the external world of timekeeping and the internal world of the mind. Culturally, the Industrial Revolution imposed clock time onto daily life in an unprecedented way. Pre-industrial agrarian societies lived by sun and season – time felt cyclic and task-oriented, woven with natural rhythms. Industrialization introduced regimented work hours, factory whistles, and railway timetables; time became a commodity measured in standardized hours and minutes. As the historian E.P. Thompson famously noted, under industrial capitalism time was no longer just passed but “spent” – a resource to be used, saved, or wasted. The psyche of workers and citizens adjusted: being “on time” and tracking the hour became ingrained values, and even biological functions like eating and sleeping were increasingly synchronized to the clock rather than to internal cues. This era marks the point when abstract clock time “permeate[d] all levels of society”, fundamentally altering our temporal consciousness. Humans began to live in the clock as much as in nature, and this change in temporal discipline would in turn shape modern notions of efficiency, progress, and eventually our psychological perception of time (the feeling of time “speeding up” in hectic modern life, for instance).

 

Meanwhile, science turned its attention to the mind itself. Enlightenment rationalism had treated consciousness as an ethereal given; now thinkers sought naturalistic explanations. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution (1859) implied that human mental capacities evolved over time from earlier life – placing consciousness firmly in the stream of time and biology. Pioneers of psychology like William James (late 19th century) began to map the workings of the mind through introspection and experiment. James in 1890 characterized consciousness as a continuous “stream of thought” – coining the famous phrase “stream of consciousness.” Drawing an analogy from Heraclitus, James asserted “no state of mind once gone can recur and be identical with what it was before”, just as one cannot step into the same river twice. Our mental life, he observed, is an ongoing flow in which each “now” differs from the last. Yet within this flux, James also noted, we somehow experience a continuity of self. Past, present, and future moments of consciousness “cohere into the experience of a continuous self, that ever-present ‘I’” flowing through time. He marveled at how the mind could be both many and one – a multiplicity of passing states that create the sense of unity. Notably, James was aware of Eastern parallels: he pointed out that the Buddhist concept of mindstream had long described a similar idea of an ongoing flow of moments comprising personal identity. This was a moment of East-West convergence in understanding consciousness. By the turn of the 20th century, psychologists also started investigating time perception scientifically, examining why time feels fast or slow under various conditions. For instance, “specious present” was a term used for the brief span of now that the mind seems to grasp (on the order of a few seconds). In all, late 19th-century science embraced the view of mind as an active, natural process – one that operates in time and can even reflect on time’s passage.

 

However, just as science was probing the mind’s stream, physics was about to upend the very definition of time. Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity (1905–1915) shattered the Newtonian illusion of absolute time. Einstein demonstrated that time is not a universal tick-tock for all observers – it can stretch or shrink depending on relative motion and gravity. He showed that time isn’t universal—it bends and stretches depending on gravity and motion. For example, a clock moving near light-speed or perched on a fast-moving spaceship will run slower relative to one on Earth. Time became relative and intertwined with space as spacetime. Yet even Einstein still treated time as an actual dimension or fabric of reality (just more flexible than we thought). The flow of time – an arrow from past to future – remained a fundamental feature of the macroscopic world, even as simultaneity and duration became subjective to reference frames.

 

The early 20th century also saw a temporary eclipse of consciousness in psychology. The rise of behaviorism (championed by John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner) insisted that only observable behavior, not inner mental states, should be the subject of science. As a result, for several decades the study of consciousness was sidelined – mind was treated as a “black box.” Yet even in this period, artists and writers (e.g. in Modernist literature) were explicitly exploring stream-of-consciousness in narrative, and some scientists quietly pursued consciousness (like in Gestalt psychology or neurophysiology of wakefulness). By mid-century, the limitations of an exclusively behaviorist approach led to the Cognitive Revolution. In the 1950s–1960s, researchers in psychology, computer science, linguistics, and neuroscience converged to study the mind as an information-processing system. The invention of digital computers provided both a metaphor and a model for thinking about cognition. Alan Turing had earlier posed the provocative question “Can machines think?” (1950), and with the advent of early AI programs, cognitive scientists began to frame the brain as a kind of organic computer – processing inputs, storing memories, and generating outputs. Notably, the field of artificial intelligence (AI) from its beginning was deeply entwined with cognitive science and philosophy: “The field of AI bridged philosophy and psychology in precisely the same way that cognitive science did: it was an applied way to test the theories growing out of cognitive psychology and the philosophy of mind.”. In building machines that mimicked reasoning or vision, scientists hoped to illuminate how our own minds work. This interdisciplinary ferment brought consciousness back into discussion, though often implicitly. Early AI research mostly tackled problem-solving and perception, sidestepping subjective awareness (the focus was on cognition rather than raw sentience). As one scholar notes, cognitive science in the late 20th century so emphasized functional and computational models that it “distanced itself from questions of subjectivity and consciousness,” creating an “explanatory gap” in understanding how brain processes relate to the first-person experience. This gap became apparent in debates over machine intelligence: a program might outplay humans at chess or converse in text, but is it conscious or just simulating thought?

Modern Perspectives: Time, Consciousness, Physics and Neuroscience

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, our understanding of time and mind has become ever more sophisticated – and in some ways, circles back to ancient insights. Modern physics delivered perhaps the most radical twist: quantum theory. Unlike relativity, standard quantum mechanics actually set time aside as an external backdrop (a parameter in Schrödinger’s equation). It was long a puzzle how to reconcile this with Einstein’s dynamic time. Some physicists now even suggest that time might not be fundamental at all – that it could be an emergent property arising from more basic timeless quantum reality. A famous proposal by Don Page and William Wootters in the 1980s argued that time “exists” only inasmuch as entangled quantum systems show correlations. In a completely isolated universe, the mathematics (like the Wheeler-DeWitt equation in quantum cosmology) has no time variable – a timeless block. Only when one part of the universe is compared to another does something like time appear. An analogy is looking at a perfectly still ocean: at one point it looks static, but comparing two points reveals a wave – time might be like those waves, arising only relative to comparisons. This view implies that fundamentally, all moments (past, present, future) could coexist in a static “block universe,” and what we call the flow of time is more about our perspective moving through a fixed landscape. Such ideas are speculative, but they resonate with the old Parmenidean notion that change is an illusion – now given new life by quantum cosmology. If the block universe is true, it raises deep questions about free will and the nature of consciousness: are we actually “making” choices, or simply playing out a tapestry of events already woven? And why do we experience time as flowing? Some neuroscientists and philosophers answer that the flow of time is a construct of our brains – a necessary illusion for survival. Indeed, “our perception of time…is actually just a mental construct, a way for our brains to process the world in a way that helps us survive.”. The brain evolved to model temporal sequence (to anticipate future outcomes and remember past dangers); thus it feels like time is moving even if physics might say all times already exist.

 

Cognitive science and neuroscience today actively investigate how the brain encodes the passage of time and how consciousness arises. Research into the neuroscience of time perception shows that our sense of time is remarkably malleable and deeply tied to attention, emotion, and memory. For example, under intense fear or novelty, subjective time dilates – moments feel drawn out (think of a car crash in slow-motion). In contrast, in states of flow or routine, hours can fly by without notice. As one neuroscientist explains, the brain does not have a single central clock ticking off seconds; rather, it constructs a sense of time from various neural signals. “The interesting thing about time is that it is not like a river that runs, but rather like a train laying down its own tracks; time is something our brains have to be actively constructing.”. In other words, clock time may exist in physics, but psychological time is generated by neural processes. Studies have found that different brain regions (like the cerebellum, basal ganglia, and cortex) track milliseconds to seconds, while the hippocampus and frontal lobes help situate events in longer narratives of past and future. Attention and emotional arousal modulate these internal clocks: greater attention to time’s passage (e.g. when bored or in pain) makes each second loom large, whereas distraction or high engagement “hides” the clock, compressing our sense of duration. One author in Psychology Today notes this is why “time flies when we’re having fun but drags when we’re bored” – our mental state, not the clock on the wall, governs the experience. Experiments have even tied neurotransmitters to time perception: for instance, increasing dopamine in the brain can make an interval seem longer (the internal clock runs faster), while increasing serotonin can have the opposite effect. Such findings reinforce the notion that the arrow of time that consciousness perceives is painted by the brain. If a certain neural circuit is disrupted (say under anesthesia or in certain neurological disorders), the subjective flow of time can alter or even disappear.

 

At the same time, neuroscience has made strides in explaining consciousness itself in physical terms. Several compelling theories vie for prominence, among them the Global Workspace Theory (GWT) and the Integrated Information Theory (IIT). GWT likens the conscious mind to a theater: myriad unconscious processes (perceptions, memories, impulses) are like actors on a dark stage, and attention is the spotlight that renders one actor brightly lit – that spotlight content is what we subjectively experience. In this model, “information in the brain becomes conscious when it gains access to a ‘global workspace’ and is broadcast to the rest of the brain.” Like a message on a global blackboard, a conscious thought or sensory perception is globally available to different brain systems (decision-making, language, memory storage, etc.), whereas non-conscious processes remain isolated in modular routines. Neuroscientists such as Stanislas Dehaene have identified brain networks (particularly fronto-parietal circuits) that seem to implement this global broadcasting – when these ignite in synchrony, a stimulus “enters consciousness,” correlating with the person reporting awareness. On the other hand, IIT approaches consciousness from a more fundamental angle, attempting to quantify the level of conscious experience by the degree of integrated information in a system. It posits that any system that integrates information (beyond certain complexity) has a subjective experience, and it even proposes a mathematical measure (Φ) for this integrated information. Both theories are being tested and debated, but both share an understanding that consciousness is not all-or-nothing – it is built up from processes that can be present or absent, and it admits degrees (for example, even within our own experience: when we are half-asleep or distracted, the “brightness” of consciousness is dimmed). Modern science thus approaches the age-old mind–body problem with empirical vigor, even if a definitive solution remains elusive. David Chalmers dubbed subjective experience “the hard problem of consciousness” – why should certain brain activity feel like anything from the inside? We have many working theories (global workspace, IIT, predictive coding, etc.) that describe how brain functions correlate with attention, self-modeling, and reportable awareness. But the essence of sentience – why a brain produces the feeling of time passing or the redness of red – still prompts debate.

 

Interestingly, some thinkers have looped back to quantum physics in search of answers. The mystery of consciousness and the mystery of quantum measurement have been tantalizingly compared. Nobel physicist Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, for example, proposed that quantum processes in microtubules of brain neurons might orchestrate consciousness (the *“Orch OR” theory). They speculated that the collapse of quantum states could be influenced by, or even give rise to, moments of mind. This is a highly controversial idea; as Stephen Hawking wryly criticized, it can sound like “consciousness is a mystery and quantum gravity is a mystery, so they must be related.” Many scientists are skeptical that quantum coherence could survive in the warm, wet brain – though recent research continues to examine if some quantum effects (perhaps via zero-point field interactions) might play a role. So far, no conclusive evidence exists that quantum mechanics is the key to consciousness, but the attempt itself underscores a motif through history: the most advanced science of the day – be it classical mechanics, information theory, or quantum field theory – is often recruited to explain the enigma of the thinking, temporally aware self.

 

Finally, the advent of advanced AI in the 21st century has forced culture to confront what consciousness really means. AI systems (like today’s large language models) can process information and even carry out conversations with human-like proficiency, but are they aware of time, or of themselves? Most experts say no – these machines manipulate symbols and statistical patterns without any inner feeling. Yet occasional claims (or illusions) of AI sentience have arisen, reflecting our ongoing confusion between intelligent behavior and true consciousness. One Google engineer’s mistaken belief that an AI chatbot was “sentient” sparked public debate in 2022, highlighting that we still lack a “solid underlying theory” linking cognitive performance to conscious experience. However, AI has been invaluable in refining our concepts: it has made us ask, if a machine can simulate human cognition, what additional ingredient does the human mind have? Some propose that embodiment and emotion are crucial – that real understanding (and a sense of time) requires having a body that hungers, fears, and hopes, existing in the flow of the world. Indeed, recent thought experiments suggest even advanced AI might need something like emotion or intrinsic motivation to attain true consciousness. The future may bring artificial agents that claim to experience the passing of time or the qualia of sensations. If that happens, humanity will face profound ethical and philosophical questions – essentially, the same questions of mind and time we’ve always pondered, but in a new form.

One Tapestry: Toward a Unified Narrative of Mind and Time

From the ancient sages to modern scientists, a unifying narrative emerges: Consciousness and time are inseparable in the human experience, and our understanding of one has continually reshaped the understanding of the other. We began by projecting our inner awareness outward – ancient cosmologies saw the rhythms of nature and mind as reflections of each other (the cosmic year, the cycle of reincarnation, the “timeliness” of virtue). With the advent of scientific rationality, we tried to objectify time as something outside us – a physical dimension, a parameter in equations – and to treat the mind as an object within that grid. Yet the farther we’ve pushed this objectivity, the more we’ve circled back to the realization that the flow of time lives in our perception and that the “objective” world is inextricably linked with how we, the observers, experience it. Modern physics tells us time may be an illusion or emergent; modern neuroscience finds that our brains actively construct the sensation of time’s passage. Thus, after centuries of analysis, we are rediscovering a truth that mystics and philosophers intuited long ago: the mind is the storyteller of time, weaving the past and future into a coherent now. Human consciousness is like a candle moving along the timeline, illuminating one moment at a time, yet also remembering where it has been and anticipating where it will go.

 

What has changed across history is our interpretation of this relationship. In antiquity, consciousness (soul) might be seen as the timeless backdrop and time as the moving picture; in modern science, time is often the backdrop and consciousness the emergent phenomenon moving within it. But increasingly, thinkers glimpse a more integrative vision: time and mind as two facets of a single process, maybe even as co-emergent. Some contemporary theories in fundamental physics and philosophy boldly suggest consciousness and time are deeply entwined at the ground of reality – for example, proposals that “consciousness comes first, and structures such as time, space and matter arise afterwards.”. While still speculative, such ideas hearken back to Vedantic or Buddhist perspectives in a new guise, effectively coming full circle.

 

In practical terms, our cultural understanding of time and consciousness continues to evolve. Mindfulness meditation, a practice with ancient Eastern roots, has gone mainstream in the modern West – teaching people to experience the present moment more fully and thereby alter their subjective sense of time. Meditators often report that in deep meditation, time seems to slow or even dissolve, aligning with neuroscience findings that a quiet, undistracted mind loses track of clock time. Meanwhile, our technology-saturated culture wrestles with time on a new scale: always-on connectivity compresses our sense of time (information flashes instantly around the globe), yet humans feel the strain of “no time to think.” We find ourselves needing to consciously manage our attention (the currency of consciousness in time) to avoid being swept away by the accelerated pace. In short, understanding the dance of time and mind is not just an academic exercise – it is crucial to how we live and find meaning.

 

Across eras, the voice of philosophers, scientists, and poets seems to speak in unison: to be conscious is to have a sense of time, and to know time (in any meaningful way) is an act of consciousness. The story of our understanding is therefore a “one voice” narrative – the voice of the human mind awakening to itself through time. That voice began in awe at the heavens and the soul, reasoning about eternity and change. It gained clarity through logic and experiment, learning how reliably the world can be measured and predicted, yet also discovering the strange subjective alchemy by which seconds turn to hours in the theater of the mind. And today that voice is a chorus – neuroscientists, physicists, contemplatives, AI engineers – all grappling with the same profound questions: What am I, this aware entity that remembers yesterday and expects tomorrow? Why does the present moment feel vivid and the past but a thought? Is time ultimately real, or a construct of my cognition? Each discipline adds a verse. In the end, the development of our ideas about consciousness and time may itself be a kind of timeline of the mind: a journey where the mind uses time to understand itself, and in understanding itself, transforms its understanding of time.

 

The narrative is ongoing. As research advances and cultures intermix, our “one voice” keeps evolving its song. We stand now at a juncture where ancient wisdom and cutting-edge science actively inform each other – quantum physicists muse on Buddhist metaphors of reality, cognitive scientists study meditation, philosophers of mind engage with AI developers. This convergence suggests that a more unified theory of mind and time may eventually emerge, one that validates multiple perspectives. Perhaps we will find that, much as the East envisioned, consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, with time as one of its modes of expression; or as modern science tends to assume, that time is fundamental and consciousness a late-emerging complexity – or something stranger that transcends both frameworks. Whatever the case, humanity’s quest to comprehend the development of consciousness and its dance with time has proven to be a rich, unending adventure. It is a story we have been telling for millennia, in myths and equations alike, and it remains as captivating as ever – a testament to the ever-curious mind moving through the vast expanse of time, trying to discern its own reflection therein.

 

Sources: 

Citations

Brahman According to Advaita and Dvaita in Hinduism

https://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/essays/brahman_duality.asp

Brahman According to Advaita and Dvaita in Hinduism

https://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/essays/brahman_duality.asp

Brahman According to Advaita and Dvaita in Hinduism

https://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/essays/brahman_duality.asp

William James on the Stream of Consciousness (1890) — The Public Domain Review

https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/william-james-stream-of-consciousness

What is Time? Part I—Philosophy

https://www.magiscenter.com/blog/what-is-time-part-one-philosophy

What is Time? Part I—Philosophy

https://www.magiscenter.com/blog/what-is-time-part-one-philosophy

What is Time? Part I—Philosophy

https://www.magiscenter.com/blog/what-is-time-part-one-philosophy

What is Time? Part I—Philosophy

https://www.magiscenter.com/blog/what-is-time-part-one-philosophy

The Duality of Time in Eastern and Western Philosophy | Blue Labyrinths

https://bluelabyrinths.com/2021/09/05/the-duality-of-time-in-eastern-and-western-philosophy/

The Duality of Time in Eastern and Western Philosophy | Blue Labyrinths

https://bluelabyrinths.com/2021/09/05/the-duality-of-time-in-eastern-and-western-philosophy/

The Duality of Time in Eastern and Western Philosophy | Blue Labyrinths

https://bluelabyrinths.com/2021/09/05/the-duality-of-time-in-eastern-and-western-philosophy/

Aristotle - Whether if soul did not exist time would exist...

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/aristotle_417380

Quote by St. Augustine: “What is time then? If nobody asks me, I know

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7664958-what-is-time-then-if-nobody-asks-me-i-know

St. Augustine’s Reflections on Memory and Time and the Current Concept of Subjective Time in Mental Time Travel - PMC

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4217622/

St. Augustine’s Reflections on Memory and Time and the Current Concept of Subjective Time in Mental Time Travel - PMC

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4217622/

Top 10 Quotes by René Descartes to Ignite Your Philosophical ...

https://www.blinkist.com/magazine/posts/top-quotes-rene-descartes-ignite-philosophical-thinking

Mind–body dualism - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism

Descartes, Rene: Mind-Body Distinction | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

https://iep.utm.edu/descartes-mind-body-distinction-dualism/

Descartes, Rene: Mind-Body Distinction | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

https://iep.utm.edu/descartes-mind-body-distinction-dualism/

Hume Texts Online

https://davidhume.org/texts/t/1/4/6

Kant – Space & Time (a priori) | Dr Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes

https://www.philosopher.eu/others-writings/kant-space-time-a-priori/

In-depth: Time Consciousness and Discipline in the Industrial Revolution | SJX Watches

https://watchesbysjx.com/2020/07/time-consciousness-and-discipline-industrial-revolution.html

We Only Have One Home

vibeworld

Read More >

ENERGY
 

ECOViBe Master

Read More >

PODCASTS

Read More >

gffgggfg

Morning with ZlaTan

vibefm radio

I’m a paragraph. Double click me or click Edit Text, it's easy.

Read More >

eurovibefx

Read More >

​

ViBeFXuk@gmail.com

United Kingdom

  • Link
  • Instagram
  • Link
  • TikTok
 
© 2035 by ViBeFX Group all rights reserved.
 

Privacy Policy

Accessibility Statement

 

 

 

Live...Kitesurf...Legacy

​ViBeFX

bottom of page