The very nature of the human being imprints a strong need to know as the strongest natural inclination, giving rise to numerous tools that promote increasingly advanced forms of knowledge production and assimilation. The passage of time led to a slow accumulation of knowledge that led to various distinctions. This massification in the current context configures the big data scenario. The blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) have been two technologies of high recognition in recent years, which is why the expert in the cryptographic space, Kimberly Rosales, explains the relationship between the two.

Faced with the overabundance of data, as a great mass of information, the need for a philosophical response arises. An initial approach to the question inclines many to inquire into the impact that blockchain and AI have on the very act of knowing. This is due to the simple question of the double presence of a thing: a natural and a cognitive one; and perhaps a third one is added: the “being in the metaverse.”

“I use in a causal way the exemplification with a tree, since this is used as a metaphorical resource in the diagram of understanding the blockchain structure, in which the root is the initial node of that intangible tree called Merkle,” Rosales indicates. As far as AI is concerned, starting from the assumption that the form of the cognizing subject increases with the form of the known object, it forces the question whether in the knowledge produced by AI systems (in the cases of deep machine learning) it is possible or not to speak of the artificial agent as a cognizing subject.

It is the forms of real entities that acquire a new existence in the human intellect and give rise to what is called knowledge. Likewise, in the metaverse, the relationship is reversed, the intellect being able to conceive forms created in the digital world that have no previous existence in reality; rather, they are modeled in a digital ecosystem to make possible their existence in the real world.

“The origin of knowledge is in reality and this same reality is what determines the measure of the content of knowledge,” assures Rosales. “Consequently, knowledge will be true when understanding is actually measured by the real thing when the intentional form coincides with the form immanent to objective reality, giving rise to an epistemological question about blockchain and AI environments. Can the systems of the latter and blockchain measure the real thing?”

If so, Rosales takes for granted the capacity for understanding, which is proper to the human intellect. The only way to be able to sustain this hypothesis would be to start from the premise that human intellect exists by derivation in the machine learning system of artificial agents, without limiting the field of analysis to AI or even its underlying platform (blockchain). This is by analogical application of the categories to the plane reserved for the human being, in which both intelligences (natural and artificial) have or would have the same substance.

The above applies to intellectual knowledge, but something similar occurs in sensible knowledge, in which the subject also becomes something else, but not intelligible but sensible, since the sensible qualities of material things are intentionally made images in the sensibility of the one who knows. This sensitive knowledge occupies a space of great importance, challenge and desire of overcoming on the part of science applied to new technologies that pretends that an artificial agent experiences the same sensitive knowledge as a human being.

The new technological agents would gravitate in the plane of knowledge and knowing, but not in philosophical knowledge. It is the knowledge and knowing proper to the human intellect. Still, the current reality empirically demonstrates that an artificial agent can produce new knowledge, perhaps not conceived a priori by the human being in charge of programming or loading information. This is the reason why it is appropriate to inquire about the being of the blockchain and the being of the AI in order to measure its action, since this follows the being (being as an entity).