Connected sequences of posts are definitely encouraged, as they are sometimes the best way to present an extensive argument. However, Iād generally recommend that someone make one post over two short posts if they could reasonably fit their content into one post, because that makes discussion easier.
In this case, I think the content could have been fit into fewer posts (not just one, but fewer than five) had the organization system been a bit different, but this isnāt meant to be a strong criticismāyou may well have chosen the best way to sort your arguments. The critique Iām most sure about is that your section on āthe nature of intelligenceā could have benefited from being broken down a bit more, with more subheadings and/āor other language meant to guide readers through the argument (similarly to the way you presented Bostromās argument in the form of a set of premises, which was helpful).
Connected sequences of posts are definitely encouraged, as they are sometimes the best way to present an extensive argument. However, Iād generally recommend that someone make one post over two short posts if they could reasonably fit their content into one post, because that makes discussion easier.
In this case, I think the content could have been fit into fewer posts (not just one, but fewer than five) had the organization system been a bit different, but this isnāt meant to be a strong criticismāyou may well have chosen the best way to sort your arguments. The critique Iām most sure about is that your section on āthe nature of intelligenceā could have benefited from being broken down a bit more, with more subheadings and/āor other language meant to guide readers through the argument (similarly to the way you presented Bostromās argument in the form of a set of premises, which was helpful).