Critical Analysis of the Article “Post-Biological Evolution of Consciousness: Philosophical and Scientific Foundations for the Necessity of Transition to Disembodied Minds”
Introduction
A professor of agriculture asked an old farmer: “Why don’t you follow the recommendations in the university handbook?”
The farmer replied: “Because the handbook was written by people who’ve never had to make a living from farming.”
This short story perfectly illustrates one of the key problems in the modern scientific approach to the study of consciousness. Many theoretical constructs are created by individuals who possess deep knowledge in philosophy, neuroscience, or computer science, yet lack significant practical experience in the direct investigation of living, embodied consciousness under real-world conditions.
The article “Post-Biological Evolution of Consciousness: Philosophical and Scientific Foundations for the Necessity of Transition to Disembodied Minds” is a well-structured review of the positions held by several prominent philosophers and theorists of consciousness. However, upon critical examination, the main problem of the work becomes evident.
The primary weakness lies in the fact that the central arguments of the article rely almost exclusively on the opinions of philosophers and theorists (such as David Chalmers, Susan Schneider, Nick Bostrom, and others) who, despite their high academic status, lack practical or experimental experience in the direct study of consciousness.
None of the key authors upon whom the article’s argumentation is built have conducted systematic laboratory research on consciousness, worked with patients in altered states of consciousness, engaged in long-term clinical observation, or performed experimental neurophysiology. Their conclusions regarding “substrate independence of consciousness,” the “evolutionary dead end of the biological body,” and the “inevitability of transition to disembodied minds” remain at the level of philosophical speculation and thought experiments.
In essence, the article transmits the personal philosophical opinions and hypotheses of individual theorists that are not supported by a solid experimental foundation. While these constructions may sound intellectually sophisticated, they largely represent speculative constructs that do not withstand serious empirical scrutiny. They possess no proven practical value and cannot serve as a basis for serious conclusions about the future development of human consciousness.
This is particularly noticeable in the sections discussing the possibility of mind uploading and post-biological existence. The authors cited in the article do not provide a single verified case of the preservation of personal identity, continuity of consciousness, or subjective experience after transfer to another substrate. All of this remains firmly in the realm of philosophical fantasy.
Conclusion:
In essence, the article is a compilation of speculative philosophical views held by individual authors who lack practical experience in the study of consciousness. Consequently, its scientific and practical value appears extremely limited. It reflects not the objective state of modern consciousness science, but rather a certain direction of philosophical thought that today remains hypothetical and weakly supported by empirical evidence.
Dr. Gen
Architect and Founder of the Church Alpha Mind