Is motion like the following?

[Mudhammam]

Every time I'm presented with the idea that the brain shapes the world in various ways, I can't help but think that we have fossil evidence prior to the development of the brain. Which means it developed in response to its environment. When a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, it does make a sound. Otherwise, the ear drum wouldn't have developed in response to sound waves. I know there's an argument that throws that into a spin, but I never remember it exactly. Because of this, I have an uncomfortable time accepting that motion or time is illusory, but it's fun to entertain.

Well, some, like Locke, have differentiated between primary qualities, which are objective and actually "out there" - size, location, motion, etc. - and secondary qualities, which exist only in the mind of the person, such as texture, color, smell, sound, etc. So, the underlying substance, this mysterious something that you experience as this particular fossil, wouldn't entirely cease to possess all of the properties you detect in it absent of your mind. The problem is how does one define a substance and how do these secondary qualities, which exist in the knower, relate to the object that is known?