I think the only semi-sensible person on the panel is physicist Adrian Kent; I’m ignoring the other two panellists. Adrian Kent says “can the mind completely be described by current physics including non-standard but respectable theories? … and I believe the answer is evidently no” (4:32). And he says “I like the sort of Wheeler-esque idea that the universe somehow needs conscious observers to support its own existence (25:10).
However, I’m disputing the following:
1. ...“it's not just the fact of consciousness but the features of consciousness that are inexplicable by physics”, Adrian Kent (5:34):
Just get over it. I think we have to just “get over it” when it comes to the fact that consciousness “feels like something”. The fact that consciousness “feels like something” is only a problem if you are trying to make consciousness emerge from equations. Otherwise, i.e. if consciousness is a fundamental element of the universe, we can quite reasonably say that the feeling aspect of consciousness is what it is, just like the laws of nature are what they are, and the numbers are what they are. We need to accept that consciousness, and other fundamental aspects of the world just “are” that way. Laws of nature, numbers, and categories (e.g. mass and position), and consciousness, are “givens”, basic facts about the universe that just have to be accepted.
More about this issue in 2. below.
2. ... “everything we understand about the material world would run just fine without any consciousness anywhere”, Adrian Kent (5:11):
No, it wouldn’t. It is easy to hypothesise what consciousness is, and why it is necessary:
At a fundamental level, the world is differentiated. Therefore, in order to operate as a system, the world must differentiate, i.e. the world must distinguish, discern difference in, its own categories (like mass and position) and its own numbers that apply to these categories. In other words, there is necessarily a knowledge/ consciousness aspect at the foundations of the world.
In any differentiated world, a corresponding base-level differentiation/ consciousness of difference necessarily exists. The two automatically go together: there is no mechanism which turns the one into the other, there is no “mapping from material states to conscious states” (Adrian Kent, 16:16). So, while the “material state” might be represented as (e.g.)
the corresponding “conscious state” would be represented as
(category = number) IS TRUE
or
(category1=number1 IS TRUE) AND (category2=number2 IS TRUE)...
Physicists and mathematicians seemingly never notice that they themselves are playing the essential “consciousness part” in physics and mathematics. In physics and mathematics, when a person consciously distinguishes the symbols for the equations and numbers on the page or screen, the person is standing in for, or playing the part of, the necessary foundation-level consciousness aspect of the world that can distinguish its own current, categories and numbers from other categories and numbers.
And when it comes to the seemingly limitless variety of conscious experience and feelings (see 1. above), this is differentiation in action.