The idea that what we’re doing is measuring publicly accessible objects, the idea that objectivity results from the fact that you and I can measure the same object in the exact same situation and get the same results — it’s very clear from quantum mechanics that that idea has to go. Physics tells us that there are no public physical objects. So what’s going on? Here’s how I think about it. I can talk to you about my headache and believe that I am communicating effectively with you, because you’ve had your own headaches. The same thing is true as apples and the moon and the sun and the universe. Just like you have your own headache, you have your own moon. But I assume it’s relevantly similar to mine. That’s an assumption that could be false, but that’s the source of my communication, and that’s the best we can do in terms of public physical objects and objective science.

I think it has been. Not only are they ignoring the progress in fundamental physics, they are often explicit about it. They’ll say openly that quantum physics is not relevant to the aspects of brain function that are causally involved in consciousness. They are certain that it’s got to be classical properties of neural activity, which exist independent of any observers — spiking rates, connection strengths at synapses, perhaps dynamical properties as well. These are all very classical notions under Newtonian physics, where time is absolute and objects exist absolutely. And then [neuroscientists] are mystified as to why they don’t make progress. They don’t avail themselves of the incredible insights and breakthroughs that physics has made. Those insights are out there for us to use, and yet my field says, “We’ll stick with Newton, thank you. We’ll stay 300 years behind in our physics.”

They are certain that it’s got to be classical properties of neural activity, which exist independent of any observers

This is why I can't take the article seriously. The subjectivity of conscious experience is independent of underlying physics and has nothing to do with the quantum vs classical debate.

Care to validate your claims ??

That reality can only be experienced subjectively is Philosophy 101. Just look up Mary's Room.

Philosophy is not required, however. Say you and I are sitting in a room: We are sitting in different places, therefore we see different perspectives, therefore perception is subjective in any such physical situation. Nowhere in that argument did I invoke classical or quantum physics. Two people can't be in the same place at the same time, therefore all perceptions are subjective.

there is nothing anymore which is absolutely true ( out the window go Judeo-Christian religions , racism, most of politics, as well as dogma and morality ). All differences, hierarchies and scales become products of our own mind and imagination ( narratives, if you will ) rather then "things out there in external reality".

If you agree that we can't experience objective reality directly, then don't you have to accept these points that you've listed? I agree that, ideally, objective reality exists, but I don't think we can prove that to be the case since none of us can step outside of our own minds. It seems to me that we are stuck with the shaky aspects of subjective reality.

In short: a simulation of an interpretation of a perception of a tell-tale stimulation of a reflection of impulses of contrasting diagnosis of a dream state interpretation of cognitive conscious activity of singularity transposed emotions of thought energy conceived spins of quantum related continuation induced appearances of a ripple effected God's fart.

I'm not only making fun here but thinking in such possibilities enables me to take emotional gravity out of the obsessive or fixative practicing, making everything very relative and less concern-able, helps me to relax in this dream. A way to make philosophy work in my advantage on a practical note, being more able to smile at hard realities. I thank quantum physics for the discovery that I really do not exist as I feared (?) and enables me more to let-go and strangely the dream responds to certain levels in a positive way. It leans more and more to a one big joke even when I have a pain here or there.

And so on ...

if we assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective, observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers.

The physicist's Realism is the claim that the world is in some sense mind-independent: that even if the results of a possible measurement do not pre-exist the act of measurement, that does not require that they are the creation of the observer

Greetings hixidom
... but of course i am in full agreement and realization with the points i listed. Let me ask you this though: why the need to believe that such a thing as "objective reality" actually exists ? Why to make this unfounded "leap" from conscious aware subjectivity to a stand alone and independent ( objective ) reality ? can you validate it ?
Granted, our Newtonian/Aristotelian biased minds carry this notion ( which can be easily explained due to its evolutive advantage, or adaptability if you will ) but such notions are practically useful at most... rather than representing a truism about how the universe is in a deeper sense.

warmest regards