>Those contents — the information on them — also mark it as a hyperobject. Like other hyperobjects, blockchains violate normal rules and transcend old paradoxes

>Those contents — the information on them — also mark it as a hyperobject. Like other hyperobjects, blockchains violate normal rules and transcend old paradoxes. For instance, some philosophers of mind have wondered how a physical object like the brain can contain information that isn’t read-out subjectively by an observer. But the information contents of blockchains seem fundamentally fixed and definite in a way most other information is not. The distributed ledger composed of wallets and their holdings has a particular consensus — it is agreed upon by all — and this consensus is enforced by proof-of-work. Perhaps one fanciful hypothesis is that the brain itself works kind of like an organic blockchain, replicating its model of self and world across its hemispheres and modules, with consciousness being the current decentralized neural consensus of the state of that model. I get that the author is trying to make a connection between blockchains and the mind, but every step from one to the other is a non-sequitur. In the 3rd sentence, "For instance" does not actually refer to a generality from the preceding sentences of which the 3rd sentence gives an example. In the 4rd sentence, the "But" does not actually stand in opposition to anything from the preceding sentence. The final sentence formulates a hypothesis that does not really offer a potential solution to the preceding problem. I can respect this kind of writing that the author is going for, but only if the argumentation actually makes sense.