Beyond Linear Evolution: Core Essence, Consciousness, and the Ontological Status of Dark Matter

By Şehrazat Yazıcı

Beyond Linear Evolution: Why This Text Exists

This text emerged from a long-standing question rather than a single hypothesis.

Across biology, cosmology, and consciousness studies, contemporary science has revealed extraordinary complexity—yet the interpretive frameworks we use to understand this complexity often remain linear, hierarchical, and reductionist. Evolution is frequently read as a chain of derivations, consciousness as a secondary outcome, and dark matter as an unresolved absence rather than a structural condition.

This paper does not challenge empirical science, nor does it propose an alternative scientific model. Instead, it asks a different kind of question:

What if the difficulty lies not in the data, but in the ontological lens through which we interpret it?

Drawing from the philosophical framework of Eteryanism, this work introduces the distinction between core essence and extension, reframing living beings as expressions of distinct ontological sources rather than as steps within a single evolutionary ladder. Within this perspective, variability is not failure, and divergence is not inefficiency—it is expression.

The same lens is extended to cosmology. Rather than approaching dark matter solely as “missing mass,” this text explores its possible role as a structural medium—an organizing condition that allows coherence, stability, and relational order to exist at cosmic scales. This is not a biological claim, but a philosophical inquiry into what makes large-scale organization possible.

Consciousness, within this framework, is neither reduced to neural byproducts nor elevated to metaphysical absolutism. It is treated as a structural capacity: the condition that enables coherence, relation, and meaningful differentiation across levels of reality.

This paper is offered as an open text—free from institutional constraints, disciplinary boundaries, or claims of finality. Its aim is not to conclude, but to open a space of reflection where evolution, consciousness, and cosmology can be thought together without hierarchy, without reduction, and without urgency.

It is published here first because ideas that question structure must themselves remain structurally free.

— Şehrazat Yazıcı

Abstract

Contemporary evolutionary theory has largely been interpreted through linear, lineage-based frameworks that emphasize descent, adaptation, and survival optimization. While these models have provided powerful explanatory tools within biology, recent findings in evolutionary dynamics, cosmology, and consciousness studies increasingly reveal their conceptual limitations.

This paper proposes a complementary ontological framework inspired by Eteryanism, a consciousness-centered philosophical approach that understands living beings not as linear descendants of one another, but as extensions of distinct core essences unfolding experiential trajectories within the third dimension. From this perspective, evolutionary variability is not an anomaly or inefficiency, but an expression of differentiated experiential coherence.

The paper further explores the implications of this framework for cosmology by reexamining the ontological status of dark matter. Rather than treating dark matter solely as missing mass or an unknown particle category, this study advances the philosophical hypothesis that dark matter may function as an organizing and coherence-bearing medium, potentially analogous to a living systemic structure within the cosmos.

By integrating evolutionary variability, consciousness, and cosmological organization into a unified philosophical inquiry, this work does not seek to replace existing scientific models, but to expand the conceptual horizon within which they are interpreted. The proposed framework invites interdisciplinary dialogue across philosophy of science, consciousness studies, and cosmology, offering new questions about structure, coherence, and the role of consciousness in the architecture of reality.

Keywords: Consciousness and Evolution, Core Essence and Extensions, Ontology of Dark Matter, Non-Linear Evolution, Philosophy of Science, Consciousness-Centered Cosmology, Eteryanism, Evolutionary Variability, Metaphysical Foundations of Biology

1. Introduction

Evolutionary theory has long been one of the central explanatory frameworks through which biological diversity, adaptation, and survival have been understood. Since Darwin, dominant interpretations of evolution have emphasized lineage-based descent, gradual modification, and natural selection as the primary mechanisms shaping life over time [1]. Within this paradigm, species are often framed as transitional stages in a continuous biological chain, with evolutionary success measured largely through reproductive fitness and environmental adaptation.

While this framework has produced profound insights within biology, recent developments across multiple disciplines suggest that linear and deterministic interpretations of evolution may be conceptually insufficient. Computational simulations of evolutionary processes, studies of phenotypic variability, and research into dynamic fitness landscapes increasingly reveal that evolutionary outcomes are highly sensitive to initial conditions, environmental sequencing, and contextual fluctuations [2]. These findings challenge the assumption that evolution follows a singular or repeatable trajectory, even under similar conditions.

Parallel challenges emerge within cosmology. Dark matter—constituting approximately 85% of the universe’s total matter content—remains one of the most persistent unresolved questions in contemporary physics [3]. Despite its central role in galaxy formation, gravitational lensing, and large-scale cosmic structure, dark matter continues to be treated primarily as an absence: missing mass, unknown particles, or incomplete models. This framing, while methodologically cautious, leaves open deeper ontological questions regarding structure, coherence, and organization at the cosmic scale.

At the same time, consciousness studies increasingly question reductionist models that treat consciousness as a secondary or emergent byproduct of complex biological systems [4]. Across philosophy of mind, systems theory, and interdisciplinary research, there is growing recognition that consciousness may play a more foundational role in organizing experience, behavior, and interaction—one that cannot be fully accounted for by linear causality alone.

Against this backdrop, this paper proposes a complementary ontological perspective grounded in Eteryanism, a consciousness-centered philosophical framework. Rather than interpreting living beings as linear descendants of one another, Eteryanism understands each species as an extension of its own core essence, unfolding a distinct experiential trajectory within the third dimension. From this perspective, evolutionary variability is not an anomaly or inefficiency, but an expression of differentiated coherence shaped by environment, timing, and internal structure.

Within this framework, evolution is not reduced to competition or optimization, but reinterpreted as expression—a process through which core essences explore experiential possibilities across dynamic conditions. This ontological shift allows for a reexamination of long-standing assumptions about species relationships, consciousness, and the nature of cosmic organization.

Building on this perspective, the paper further explores the ontological status of dark matter—not as a speculative biological entity, but as a potential organizing and coherence-bearing medium within the cosmos. By situating dark matter, evolutionary variability, and consciousness within a unified philosophical inquiry, this work aims to expand the conceptual horizon through which scientific findings are interpreted, without displacing or contradicting established empirical models.

2. The Concept of Core Essence and Extensions

Within dominant evolutionary discourse, living beings are typically understood as products of genetic inheritance, environmental pressures, and adaptive success. Species are framed as nodes within a lineage-based continuum, where biological traits are transmitted through descent and modified over time [5]. While this framework effectively explains morphological and functional variation, it remains largely silent on deeper ontological questions concerning identity, experiential continuity, and the source of differentiated expression across species.

Eteryanism introduces the concept of core essence as a foundational ontological unit distinct from biological form. A core essence is not defined by physical structure, genetic composition, or evolutionary ancestry; rather, it represents a pre-biological organizing principle through which experience, coherence, and expression are made possible within dimensional reality. From this perspective, biological organisms are understood as extensions—localized, dimension-bound manifestations of their respective core essences.

This distinction fundamentally alters the interpretation of species relationships. Rather than viewing species as successive stages within a single evolutionary chain, Eteryanism proposes that each species is the expression of a distinct core essence, unfolding its own experiential trajectory within the third dimension. Humans, primates, mammals, and other life forms are therefore not hierarchically ordered derivatives of one another, but parallel expressions of differentiated ontological sources.

Importantly, this framework does not reject evolutionary mechanisms such as natural selection, mutation, or adaptation. Instead, it reframes them as modulatory processes acting upon extensions, rather than as the originators of essence itself. Evolution, in this sense, operates on form and function, while core essence governs directionality, coherence, and experiential capacity.

The variability observed in evolutionary outcomes—particularly under dynamic and unpredictable environmental conditions—can thus be interpreted as evidence of differentiated expressive pathways rather than as stochastic inefficiency [6]. Where traditional models may interpret divergence as contingency or error, the core essence framework understands divergence as context-sensitive expression emerging from distinct ontological identities.

This perspective also offers a conceptual resolution to longstanding debates regarding human exceptionalism. Rather than positioning humans as a superior evolutionary endpoint or as an anomalous deviation from other species, Eteryanism situates humanity as the extension of a human core essence, characterized by specific capacities for reflective consciousness, symbolic abstraction, and ethical self-awareness. These capacities are not the result of incremental superiority, but of ontological differentiation.

By distinguishing between essence and extension, Eteryanism provides a non-reductive framework in which biological evolution, consciousness, and experiential diversity can coexist without collapsing into hierarchical or anthropocentric models. Species differences are neither denied nor ranked; they are contextualized as expressions of distinct experiential logics unfolding within shared dimensional conditions.

This ontological distinction lays the groundwork for reexamining broader cosmological structures. If differentiated core essences require a medium through which coherence, interaction, and organization are sustained across scales, then the question of what enables such coherence at the cosmic level becomes unavoidable. It is within this conceptual opening that the discussion of dark matter, organization, and systemic coherence emerges.

3. Rethinking Evolution Beyond Lineage

Traditional evolutionary narratives have largely relied on lineage-based models, in which species are understood through ancestral descent and branching genealogies. Within this framework, evolutionary change is mapped as a historical sequence, where variation accumulates over time and species diverge through adaptive specialization [7]. While this model has proven effective for reconstructing phylogenetic relationships, it implicitly reinforces the assumption that evolutionary meaning resides primarily in ancestry.

However, growing empirical evidence suggests that lineage alone cannot account for the complexity and diversity of evolutionary outcomes. Studies in evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), phenotypic plasticity, and systems biology demonstrate that similar genetic starting points can lead to markedly different forms, behaviors, and adaptive strategies depending on environmental sequencing and contextual pressures [8]. Evolution, in practice, appears far less like a linear progression and far more like a context-sensitive unfolding of possibilities.

From an Eteryanism perspective, this observation invites a fundamental reinterpretation. If species are understood as extensions of distinct core essences, then evolutionary processes need not be confined to ancestry-based causality. Instead, evolution can be viewed as the modulation of expression, shaped by interaction between core essence, environmental conditions, and dimensional constraints. Lineage, in this sense, becomes descriptive rather than determinative.

This reframing helps clarify why evolutionary simulations often yield divergent outcomes even when initial parameters appear similar. Rather than indicating randomness or failure, such divergence reflects the fact that expression is not reproducible when experiential identity differs. Evolutionary paths are therefore not reruns of the same process, but distinct realizations shaped by timing, sequencing, and internal coherence [9].

Importantly, this view does not negate biological continuity or shared genetic features across species. Genetic commonalities can be understood as shared structural affordances within the third dimension, rather than as evidence of hierarchical derivation. Similarities across species reflect overlapping functional constraints, not ontological dependence. Difference, rather than similarity, becomes the primary indicator of experiential identity.

Within this framework, the concept of evolutionary “progress” also requires reconsideration. Progress implies directionality toward an optimal endpoint, often implicitly measured against human cognitive or technological benchmarks [10]. Eteryanism challenges this assumption by proposing that evolution does not aim toward superiority or complexity, but toward contextual adequacy of expression. What appears as advancement in one context may represent maladaptation in another.

This non-teleological interpretation aligns with contemporary critiques of anthropocentrism in evolutionary theory. By decoupling evolution from linear ascent, Eteryanism allows species to be understood as complete within their own experiential domains, rather than as incomplete steps toward another form. Each species expresses a coherent mode of engagement with reality, shaped by its core essence and environmental interface.

By moving beyond lineage-centered explanations, evolution emerges not as a competitive ladder, but as a plurality of unfolding narratives, each internally consistent yet externally diverse. This perspective opens conceptual space for integrating consciousness, coherence, and organization into evolutionary discourse without reducing them to genetic determinism or emergent epiphenomena.

This expanded view of evolution raises a further question: if differentiated expressions require a stabilizing background that allows multiple evolutionary narratives to coexist without collapsing into chaos, what underlies this systemic coherence at the cosmic level? Addressing this question leads directly to the ontological inquiry into dark matter as a potential organizing medium.

4. Dark Matter as an Organizing Medium

Dark matter occupies a central yet paradoxical position in contemporary cosmology. Although it constitutes the majority of the universe’s matter content, its nature remains fundamentally elusive. It does not emit, absorb, or reflect electromagnetic radiation, and is therefore detectable only through its gravitational influence on visible matter, radiation, and large-scale cosmic structures [11]. Standard cosmological models describe dark matter primarily in negative terms: as non-baryonic, non-luminous, and weakly interacting.

While this cautious framing is methodologically appropriate within physics, it also leaves open an unresolved ontological gap. Dark matter is routinely invoked to explain coherence—the stability of galaxies, the formation of large-scale structures, and the persistence of gravitational order across cosmic scales—yet its role is rarely examined beyond functional necessity. The question of what kind of entity enables such systemic coherence remains largely unaddressed.

From an Eteryanism perspective, this gap invites philosophical reconsideration. If the cosmos exhibits structured stability across immense scales and timescales, then coherence itself cannot be treated as a byproduct of chance aggregation alone. Instead, coherence suggests the presence of an organizing medium—a structural substrate through which relational order is sustained. Dark matter, given its omnipresence and organizing effects, emerges as a compelling candidate for such a role.

Importantly, this proposal does not redefine dark matter as a biological organism in the conventional sense. Rather, it advances a philosophical analogy: dark matter may function as a systemic, coherence-bearing structure, comparable to an organism in its capacity to organize, stabilize, and regulate interactions across a complex system. In systems theory, organization and regulation are not exclusive to living entities but are characteristic of any sufficiently complex, self-consistent structure [12].

This interpretation aligns with broader shifts in scientific thought that emphasize relationality over material reductionism. In contemporary physics, fields, networks, and informational structures increasingly replace classical notions of isolated particles as fundamental explanatory units [13]. Within this context, dark matter may be understood not merely as “missing mass,” but as a relational field that enables the persistence of form and structure throughout the universe.

Such a view also provides conceptual continuity between cosmology and consciousness studies. If coherence at biological and cognitive levels requires organizational substrates—neural networks, informational integration, and systemic regulation—then it is philosophically consistent to ask whether cosmic-scale coherence similarly depends on an organizing medium. Dark matter, in this sense, becomes a candidate for mediating not content, but structural possibility.

Within the Eteryanism framework, the role of dark matter can thus be interpreted as facilitating the coexistence of differentiated experiential expressions across the third dimension. Distinct core essences, unfolding through their respective extensions, require a stabilizing background that allows multiplicity without collapse. Dark matter, as an omnipresent yet non-localized medium, offers a conceptual bridge between differentiated expression and systemic unity.

This perspective reframes dark matter from a passive explanatory placeholder into an active structural condition—not in the sense of agency or intention, but in its capacity to sustain coherence across scales. Such a reframing does not contradict empirical findings; rather, it expands the interpretive horizon within which those findings acquire meaning.

By approaching dark matter as an organizing medium, the discussion moves beyond the question of what dark matter is made of toward the deeper question of what dark matter makes possible. This shift prepares the ground for a more integrated understanding of evolution, consciousness, and cosmological order—one in which structure, coherence, and expression are treated as fundamental aspects of reality rather than as emergent anomalies.

5. Consciousness as a Structural Element of the Cosmos

Within mainstream scientific discourse, consciousness has traditionally been treated as a secondary phenomenon—either as an emergent property of complex neural processes or as a byproduct of evolutionary adaptation [14]. While such approaches have generated valuable insights into cognitive mechanisms and behavioral functions, they struggle to account for the unity of subjective experience, intentionality, and the coherence of perception across changing contexts.

Philosophical and scientific critiques of reductive models increasingly point to an explanatory gap between physical processes and lived experience. This gap has led some researchers to reconsider whether consciousness can be fully explained as an emergent effect, or whether it must be understood as a more fundamental structural aspect of reality[15]. Within this emerging discourse, consciousness is not positioned as an external addition to matter, but as an organizing principle that shapes how matter, information, and experience interact.

Eteryanism aligns with this non-reductive shift by proposing that consciousness is not produced by extensions, but rather precedes and structures them. From this perspective, core essence is inherently conscious—not necessarily in a reflective or self-aware sense, but in its capacity for coherence, responsiveness, and experiential orientation. Biological consciousness, including human awareness, is thus understood as a localized articulation of a more foundational conscious structure.

This framework offers a coherent bridge between evolutionary theory and cosmology. If consciousness is treated as structurally prior rather than emergent, then evolutionary processes can be interpreted as mechanisms through which conscious structures explore differentiated modes of expression within dimensional constraints. Consciousness does not arise from evolution; rather, evolution becomes one of the means through which consciousness manifests variability.

Such a view resonates with developments in information theory and systems science, where organization, integration, and coherence are increasingly emphasized over material substrate alone [16]. In these contexts, consciousness may be understood as a form of integrative ordering, enabling systems to maintain internal consistency while interacting with dynamic environments. This ordering function parallels the role attributed to dark matter as a coherence-bearing medium at the cosmic scale.

Within the Eteryanism framework, consciousness thus operates across multiple levels of reality:at the level of core essence as foundational coherence;at the level of extensions as experiential articulation;and at the cosmic level as the condition that allows differentiated expressions to coexist within a unified structural field.

Importantly, this interpretation does not require attributing intention, agency, or cognition to the universe as a whole. Consciousness, in this context, is not synonymous with awareness or will, but with structural intelligibility—the capacity of reality to organize, relate, and sustain meaningful patterns. This distinction preserves philosophical rigor while avoiding anthropomorphic projections.

By recognizing consciousness as a structural element rather than a derivative anomaly, Eteryanism offers a framework in which evolution, cosmology, and subjective experience can be discussed within a single ontological horizon. Consciousness becomes neither an inexplicable mystery nor a reducible illusion, but a necessary condition for coherence and expression within a dynamic universe.

This understanding prepares the ground for the final integrative discussion, where the implications of core essence, evolutionary variability, dark matter, and consciousness are brought together to consider the future architecture of philosophical and scientific inquiry.

6. Discussion and Philosophical Implications

The framework developed in this paper invites a reconsideration of several foundational assumptions that have shaped modern scientific and philosophical discourse. By distinguishing between core essence and extension, reinterpreting evolution beyond linear lineage, and proposing dark matter and consciousness as structural conditions of coherence, Eteryanism introduces an ontological lens that neither replaces nor contradicts empirical science, but reorients its interpretive boundaries.

One immediate implication concerns the status of explanation itself. Contemporary science has achieved remarkable success by prioritizing causal mechanisms, material interactions, and predictive models. However, as complexity increases—whether in evolutionary dynamics, cosmological structures, or consciousness studies—purely mechanistic explanations increasingly encounter conceptual limits [17]. The Eteryanism framework responds to this challenge not by rejecting mechanism, but by situating it within a broader ontological context of expression and coherence.

This shift carries significant implications for evolutionary theory. If species are understood as expressions of distinct core essences rather than as transitional nodes in a single genealogical chain, then evolutionary diversity can be interpreted as plurality without hierarchy. Variation ceases to be an anomaly requiring correction and becomes a primary indicator of differentiated experiential logic. This perspective aligns with contemporary critiques of progress-oriented evolutionary narratives and supports a non-teleological understanding of biological change [18].

In cosmology, the reinterpretation of dark matter as an organizing medium reframes one of physics’ most persistent unknowns. While current models rightly focus on detecting particles, interactions, or alternative gravitational explanations, the philosophical question of what enables large-scale coherence remains open. Treating dark matter as a structural condition rather than merely a missing component allows cosmological inquiry to engage with questions of organization, stability, and relational order without exceeding empirical restraint [19].

The integration of consciousness as a structural element further extends these implications. By decoupling consciousness from strict emergence narratives, Eteryanism contributes to ongoing debates in philosophy of mind and cognitive science regarding the explanatory gap between physical processes and subjective experience. Consciousness, understood as structural intelligibility rather than anthropomorphic awareness, becomes a necessary condition for coherence, not an accidental byproduct [20].

Importantly, this framework avoids collapsing into panpsychism or metaphysical idealism. Consciousness is not attributed indiscriminately to all matter, nor is reality reduced to mental substance. Instead, consciousness is treated as a relational capacity—a structural feature that enables differentiation, integration, and meaningful interaction across levels of organization. This preserves conceptual rigor while maintaining openness to interdisciplinary dialogue.

From a methodological standpoint, the Eteryanism framework exemplifies a mode of philosophical inquiry that complements scientific investigation without overstepping its epistemic limits. It does not offer testable predictions in the narrow experimental sense, nor does it claim empirical verification. Its contribution lies in conceptual reconfiguration—the expansion of interpretive space within which scientific findings can be situated and related.

Finally, the implications of this approach extend beyond academic discourse. As humanity confronts ecological instability, technological acceleration, and existential uncertainty, frameworks that emphasize coherence, responsibility, and non-hierarchical plurality may offer valuable ethical and epistemological orientation. By situating humans not as evolutionary endpoints but as participants within a differentiated yet unified structure of existence, Eteryanism invites a reconsideration of humanity’s role within the broader architecture of reality.

7. Conclusion

This paper has sought to expand the conceptual horizon within which evolution, consciousness, and cosmological structure are interpreted, without challenging the empirical foundations upon which contemporary science is built. By introducing the distinction between core essence and extension, the Eteryanism framework offers an ontological perspective that reframes biological diversity, evolutionary variability, and cosmic coherence as expressions of differentiated yet unified structures of reality.

Reconsidering evolution beyond linear lineage allows species to be understood not as hierarchical stages within a single chain, but as distinct experiential expressions, each complete within its own ontological logic. This shift dissolves long-standing tensions surrounding progress, superiority, and anthropocentrism, replacing them with a model of plurality grounded in contextual coherence rather than competition.

The philosophical reinterpretation of dark matter as an organizing medium further extends this inquiry to the cosmological scale. Without departing from empirical restraint, this approach invites reflection on the structural conditions that enable large-scale coherence, stability, and relational order in the universe. Dark matter, viewed through this lens, becomes not merely a missing component, but a conceptual bridge between structure and possibility.

By situating consciousness as a structural element rather than a derivative anomaly, the framework presented here integrates subjective experience into a unified ontological landscape. Consciousness is neither reduced to mechanical emergence nor elevated to metaphysical absolutism; instead, it is understood as a relational capacity that enables coherence, differentiation, and meaningful expression across levels of organization.

Taken together, these perspectives do not propose an alternative science, but a complementary philosophical orientation—one that seeks to clarify the interpretive assumptions underlying scientific models and to open space for interdisciplinary dialogue. The value of Eteryanism lies not in definitive answers, but in the questions it renders possible: questions about coherence, expression, and the conditions that allow multiplicity to exist without fragmentation.

As scientific inquiry continues to probe the limits of explanation in evolution, cosmology, and consciousness studies, philosophical frameworks capable of holding complexity without reduction may become increasingly necessary. In this sense, Eteryanism is offered not as a conclusion, but as an invitation—to reconsider how structure, experience, and reality itself are understood within an evolving universe.

References:

[1] Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray.

[2] Petak, C., et al. (2025). The variability of evolvability: Properties of dynamic fitness landscapes determine how phenotypic variability evolves. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3] Planck Collaboration. (2018). Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6.

[4] Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[5] Mayr, E. (1982). The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[6] Pigliucci, M. (2001). Phenotypic Plasticity: Beyond Nature and Nurture. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

[7] Futuyma, D. J. (2013). Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

[8] Carroll, S. B. (2005). Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

[9] Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[10] Gould, S. J. (1989). Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

[11] Clowe, D., et al. (2006). A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 648(2), L109–L113.

[12] von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: George Braziller.

[13] Rovelli, C. (2016). Reality Is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity. New York: Riverhead Books.

14] Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

[15] Nagel, T. (1974). What Is It Like to Be a Bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450.

[16] Tononi, G. (2008). Consciousness as Integrated Information: A Provisional Manifesto. Biological Bulletin, 215(3), 216–242.

[17] Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[18] Lewontin, R. C. (2000). The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[19] Smolin, L. (2013). Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

[20] Strawson, G. (2006). Realistic Monism: Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 13(10–11), 3–31.

*This article is published as an independent theoretical paper.

A revised academic version may be submitted to peer-reviewed journals in the future.