Thanks a lot for this, Marco. It is extremely helpful, if for no other reason that I’m reassured that I’m not the only one running around with a bunch of questions in my head.
This is something like what I suspected, but I wasn’t sure. As Kyle’s (@dkpierce) Urban quote makes clear, “realism” is also a terminus technicus (Fachbegriff); that is a philosophically formal term (and I’m hoping he’ll help me get that sorted a little better in my mind, too). My reference to the “edifice of ‘science’” was a bit tongue-in-cheek, as I personally believe that “science” is, as it’s name implies mere a (meaning “one of perhaps several”) way of knowing, but as practiced most consistently in the “realm of measurement”, which can (and has been) rather effective, but certainly anything but omniscient. One can “measure” tables and chairs, of course, but not so much consciousness, but I think consciousness is every bit as “real” as are tables and chairs. And as you cogently point out:
It would seem that you, me, and Bernardo all agree that the more mental acrobatics involved, the more questionable the “explanations” become. That is one point, but certainly not the whole point. Yes, Rovelli appears to be trying a different approach, and perhaps it will turn out to be more productive (or not, who knows?). But we agree we need to get beyond saving the appearances. It would seem that both you and I agree that we need to be careful when doing so. (Like you, I downloaded the referenced QM-related articles, but unlike you, I have no real background for understanding just what’s actually being said, so I wonder about the connection for very different reasons than you. 
)
This all reminds me of a talk Stan Tenen (from the Meru Foundation on the possible interrelatedness of consciousness, physics, and the Hebrew alphabet, and that has been the focus of a couple of CCafé sessions … see here and here) who started one of his lectures with alerting the audience to the fact that when he said “is”, what he really meant was “could be”, but then the lecture would be too hard to follow – and it was hard enough as it was! It could very well be that Mr. Kastrup is overstating his case as a matter of expediency – sort of according to the motto: maybe it’s time to get past saving the appearances and just look for new explanations.
And having said that, your critique:
is certainly justified … well, at least you’ve convinced (and helped me understand) why he may be overstating his case at this point.
Good question, and I think that’s the one I’m really wrestling with, though, like you, I’m not sure I’ve come to a self-satisfactory answer yet.
Thanks again for the clarifications.