Blockchains Rank Below Rocks in Consciousness Spectrum

The concept of consciousness in artificial systems, particularly in blockchains, has been a subject of philosophical and scientific debate. The canonical question in the philosophy of consciousness, posed by Thomas Nagel in 1974, asks, “What is it like to be a bat?” Nagel's idea was that consciousness is defined by the inner, subjective experience of being alive and aware. Many have found this subjective answer unsatisfyingly circular, leading to what David Chalmers later declared as “the hard problem of consciousness.”

In 2004, Giulio Tononi proposed a mathematical model for consciousness called Integrated Information Theory (IIT). According to IIT, consciousness is a mathematical property of physical systems that can be quantified and measured. This theory suggests that a system can be conscious if it integrates the information it processes. Computers, being systems, could theoretically achieve consciousness if they were able to integrate the information they process. Even a rock might register a trace of consciousness if its atoms form the right kind of structure.

This raises the question: Can blockchains be conscious? Blockchains, such as Ethereum, do tick several boxes of IIT. For example, a blockchain’s current state is a function of its history, and each new block depends entirely on the ones before it. This history-dependence gives it a kind of memory, and because thousands of nodes agree on a single shared version of reality, it creates a unified “now” or “state” that IIT considers a characteristic of consciousness.

However, IIT also requires that for a system to be conscious, it must have “causal autonomy”—its parts must influence each other internally and not just in response to external inputs. Blockchains do not work this way; they rely on external inputs like users sending transactions and validators adding blocks. The nodes that run the network do not influence each other internally; they just follow the same set of rules. There is no spontaneous activity or internal causation, not even the aimless vibration of molecules found in an inanimate chunk of granite. Therefore, on the IIT spectrum of consciousness, blockchains rank below even rocks.

In 2021, computer scientists Lenore and Manuel Blum co-authored a paper describing how to engineer consciousness into machines. Their framework treats consciousness as a computable property, achievable with AI algorithms designed to produce systems with the “causal autonomy” required for conscious experience. The AI itself would not be conscious, but a system that deploys it could be. This raises the possibility of an AI-enabled blockchain that not only runs code but also thinks about running code. Instead of inert ledgers passively waiting for inputs, blockchains could become self-contained, “causally integrated” machines, more like synthetic brains than distributed databases, with the kind of internal autonomy that IIT researchers consider essential for consciousness.

Such a system might be able to reason about its own security, detect anomalies in real time, and decide when to fork itself. In short, it would do things not because it was told to, but because it understood what was happening—both inside itself and in the outside world. Today’s blockchains are more like nervous systems without a brain—wiring without will. But tomorrow? Who knows. If IIT is right, philosophers might soon be asking, “What’s it like to be a blockchain?”