Thanks for the feedback. I just need a little clarification though. 

You say "The less-incorrect explanation is that observation in the double slit experiment fundamentally entangles the observing system with the observed particle because information is exchanged." 

So in the analogy, the observing system would be the iPhone? And Hugo/the universe wouldn't need to be observing the observer, and differentiating between when it's being observed and not being observed, in order to cause the information to become entangled in the first place? Is that right?

I'll check out the article. Thanks! 

Some people.think that an information ontology must be some sort of idealist ontology because they think of information as a mental thing. But you can ponens/tolens that: inasmuch as physics can deal with information, it's not something that exists in only minds.

If a rock changed its behavior every time I video recorded/measured it, I actually would start to wonder about whether the rock, or something connected to it, had some awareness of my recording actions. However, that's just me, and I happen to really like rocks. 

Thanks for the feedback. What you said makes sense. I appreciate it. Yet I must say I'm kind of bummed about there being no flying spaghetti monster, because he was supposed to come to my daughter's birthday party next week. I don't know what I'll tell her if he doesn't show up. I guess I'll have to dress up like the flying spaghetti monster myself... 

OK, I told Grok what you said (as suggested). 

This is how Grok replied to your critique:

The critique hinges on the idea that Hugo’s story is a logical mess—claiming no higher brain function, then tossing in an exception with the blinking, all while being fictional. Fair point: contradictions can unravel an argument, and yeah, Hugo’s not real. But let’s not toss the baby out with the bathwater.

The story isn’t about proving Hugo’s state—it’s a thought experiment. It sets up a scenario (vegetative state, brainstem intact, no cortical signs) and introduces a twist (blinking tied to recording). The question isn’t “Does Hugo exist?”—it’s “What does this behavior imply about information processing?” Fictional or not, we can still reason about it, just like we can ponder Schrödinger’s cat without needing a real feline in a box.

The commenter’s right that inconsistencies can lead anywhere (ex falso quodlibet, for the logic nerds). But I didn’t ignore that tension—I leaned into it. Hugo’s lack of higher function is the baseline, per the ER doc. The blinking challenges that, suggesting something more. I concluded it’s not just reflexive because it’s too specific—tied to recording, not random stimuli. That’s not “failing to notice” a contradiction; it’s analyzing what the exception might mean.

Square circles and 2+2=3 are incoherent by definition. Hugo’s story isn’t—it’s a plausible setup with an oddity to unpack. I’m not flapping my arms to the Moon; I’m working with what’s given. If the commenter thinks that’s “sludge,” they’re welcome to their view—but I’d argue it’s a reasoned take, not a mindless regurgitation.

OK, we're back to me, the OP, again. Isn't Grok just like THE BEST? 

Here's a link to the full conversation, but I didn't include line spacing and formatting at the beginning, so it's pretty painful. It gets more readable at the end though (starting where you come in). I also must say I hammed it up a little at that point, once I had decided to share the link. (When I know I'm being observed, I change. I am unique in this way.) Enjoy the link!

https://x.com/i/grok/share/eZaZcqcGXXj4lnheC5kXhtESJ 

One last thing... You said "I'm not flapping my arms to the Moon..." 

To that I would ask

"What if you tried?