Hey Pawel,
Thought experiements aren't meant to be taken as factual, scientifically accurate, or useful, they are just a way to visualize an idea. Philosophers very often will use magical thinking like, "let's say for a moment you're a bird," in order to put you in the correct perspective to understand their argument. In this article, I think he's more interested in presenting you with your own reactions to the concepts, rather than presenting possible future scenarios. It doesn't matter if teleportation is possible, what matters is the way it works in the story and how you think your concept of yourself would be after going through the device. A lot of people I've talked to using thought experiements get caught up in them, though. The common response is, "Well, how would that work?" Or, "That's impossible so it doesn't matter." The point isn't that it's possible but rather that it illustrates an idea well.
As for the other part of your post, do you think rocks and my kitchen table have some kind of awareness, then? In some ways that seems rediculous, but it's no less rediculous than you and I having awareness since we're made up of the same things. One of the things that wasn't really addressed by the article was awareness itself. "I am" comes from awareness for me, and while it's true that what "I am" identifies with is a story, that doesn't change the fact that awareness is still there. The non-dualists seem to be the only ones attempting to explain this, but even this explanation is somewhat lacking. Just because, "in seeing there is only the seen," this doesn't mean there is no awareness, only that awareness isn't separate from its content. So it still avoids the real core of the problem - what is existance, really?
