Do "observers" have any choice but to observe*?

Does asteroid X observer the sun?

Yep.

Asteroids observe?

Passive observing/active observing. Enmeshed.

From a post of yours above:

Interesting notion. If conscious where is it conscious, all over smoothly in a single unit of consciousness or difference in particulars and location and time. That is, asteroid x is more conscious than asteroid Y and thus observes star Z. Asteroid Y being in the outer darkness, sleeping off Friday night at Zeno's Bar and Grill. Is galaxy P a super consciousness with its will intertwined with the intergalactic gas cloud A?

Stating some general conjecture implies many other particulars, and cascading bifurcating particulars, if you think them through.

And what does "Observe" even mean in your context. Every particle in the universe is subject to gravity. Is that "observe".

I once did not observe Brian have a battle with a sidewalk, that he lost. The after effects I did observe. Gravity won, as it usually does.

Explicitly state a definition.

I gave you the distance to the nearest observer, which means 1 and 2 and 3 are silly answers.

4 could possibly be interesting, but it really just means that the conscious observer isn't necessary at all.

I spent the day believing that the big toe on my left foot was a conscious observer. Didn't make any difference to me or my toe.

Well, does it absorb or reflect light?

Alright mate.

Suppose that's even looser than some of my half-baked ideas, but I'll play along...

Okay. Another question to explore ....

Is a camera an observer?

Didn't see this for some reason.

To answer your question; imagine a concious bacteria type of life form, living inside a larger system. That bacteria is our whole universe. It perceives or experiences it's internals much like you do when you get stabbing pains in the liver after too much beer.

Let's define 'observe' as experience (through whatever sensory or other apparatus). As opposed to what you cannot experience (e.g. whatever chemical reaction accompanies photosynthesis).

Consider that there is no physics. Only biology.

This would necessitate that the Universe be different from the one we are currently in.

You could apply it to a thought experiment but if would have no application to this present Universe, as so far understood.

I would rather delve into something less airy. Indistinct parameters and lack of frame of reference can lead to much nonsense. Others may have different views about it. Which is fine.

Unimaginable, in this universe, that all the seemingly physical processes are not just chemical reactions of a sort? Obviously we wouldn't be able to tell, until we had some more comprehensive models of the movements of all objects.

How has this been ruled out?

...but, airy is my jam! I have no substance; I must overcompensate.

Without physics, there is no movement. Chemistry doesn't cover movement.

A technicality of little consequence.
Biology covers movement.
Some redifinition of physics perhaps would appease instead?

Biology doesn't cover movement without physics. There's no light or energy without physics.

Biological bodies move don't they? They have motives for their movements don't they? Some examples include survival, reproduction, consumption etc. Your internals have biological motives too.

The movements of objects in the universe could not be motivated by biological motives?

They have no energy, so no movement.

So we have a full account of the role of dark energy, dark matter and the remainder of the 60%+ of the universe we don't know about?

We can rule out the biological hypothesis?

We cannot describe any of those without physics until you both redefine physics and biology. I'll be anxiously awaiting your 200,000 page essay with the relevant formulas.

Don't screw up and have any friction, please.

Biology is contrived. There is only physics. It's reasonable to think that biology requires complex structure. Structure requires a substrate. Physics is the substrate.
And so it would be for internal knowledge as well. A system cannot know itself fully. The vast majority of it must be blind in order for there to be seeing things. That's where the consciousness paradox comes in as well. A system cannot know itself fully.

And supposing the answer is yes. is a camera capable of interpreting observations?

Or some may say a qualified observer must be capable of interpreting what's been observed.

So when we say observer, do we really mean interpreter?

A camera can take an observation Like an eye can remember.

Like an asteroid reflects light, does the light make what an impression on an asteroid like a memory, or just a meme? The reflection we may see is memorable.

And is each part of an observation action lessor than when taken whole? Yes.

An eye is extended with a camera. Memory is liberated to clouded. A camera alone and telescope by itself are just light reflectors with out interpreting part

So the saying applies to the arts of observation and interpretation. FYI.