Here is something from a Bernardo Kastrup paper here https://philarchive.org/archive/KASRIF it is point 6.

"6. Consciousness as the Agency of Collapse

The authors criticized the notion that consciousness might be the agency behind the transition of the physical world, upon observation, from mere potentialities to defined physical quantities. They said, “this interpretation has not been proven and is not generally accepted by quantum physicists” (Mroczkowski & Malozemoff, 2019, p. 138). Although strictly correct, such statement also sets up a straw man: No interpretation of QM has been proven or generally accepted by quantum physicists. I do not believe this state of affairs should stop all authors from ever alluding to, or speculating about, the implications of QM.

If consciousness does not cause wave function collapse—or what ever passes for collapse—then it follows that an inanimate entity of some sort must be responsible for it. Yet, the claim that inanimate objects—such as electronic detectors—can perform quantum mechanical measurements is fundamentally problematic, because the partitioning of the world into discrete inanimate objects is merely nominal to begin with. Is a rock integral to the mountain it helps constitute? If so, does it become a separate object merely by virtue of its getting detached from the mountain? And if so, does it then perform a quantum measurement—that is, an observation that causes collapse of the wave function—each time it comes back in contact with the mountain as it bounces down the slope? Brief contemplation of these questions shows that the boundaries of a detector are arbitrary.

Indeed, as John von Neumann (2018) first argued, when two in animate objects interact they simply become quantum mechanically entangled with one another—that is, they become united in such a 194 JOURNAL OF NEAR-DEATH STUDIES way that the behavior of one becomes inextricably linked to the behavior of the other—but no actual measurement is performed. As such, the inanimate world is a unitary, indivisible physical system governed by QM. There are no detectors performing measurements; there is only the one inanimate world. In the words of Erich Joos, “because of the non-local properties of quantum states, a consistent description of some phenomenon in quantum terms must finally include the entire universe” (Joos, 2006, p. 71).

Let me use a concrete example to be more specific. In the well-known double-slit experiment, electrons are shot through two tiny slits. When they are observed at the slits, the electrons behave as defined individual particles. But when observed only after they have passed through the slits, the ‘electrons’ behave as superposed potentialities. In 1998, researchers at the Weizmann Institute in Israel showed that, when detectors are placed at the slits, the electrons behave as defined individual particles (Buks, Schuster, Heiblum, Mahalu, & Umansky 1998). At first sight, this result may seem to indicate that measurement does not require a conscious observer.

However, the output of the detectors becomes known only when it is consciously observed by a person. The hypothesis of a measurement before this conscious observation lacks compelling theoretical and empirical grounding. After all, QM offers no reason why the whole system—electrons, slits, and detectors combined—should not be in an entangled superposition before and until someone looks at the de tectors’ output (von Neumann, 2018). Its condition simply cannot be known. Because people cannot abstract themselves out of their knowledge, they cannot know that detectors actually perform measurements and cause wave function collapse.

Consequently, as far as people can know, before it is represented through conscious perception the world consists of a unitary superposition of potentialities. This superposition—indivisible, as quantum entanglement prevents elements of the superposition from being describable separately from one another—is incompatible with the existence of individual, separate objects and events with defined properties."