There is a strong tradition of physicists (scientists of all stripes, really) assuming they have some deep understanding of the natural universe and logic far beyond that of philosophers and stepping far outside their expertise to say laughably absurd and quackish things about hard problems in philosophy. So I appreciate your caution.

But it's also the case that just because a physicist is trying to tackle consciousness -- a much harder problem than anything physicists have taken on this far -- doesn't make him a quack. To dismiss it out of hand is foolish; IIT is a thing and this paper certainly fits within that framework, though I don't know enough to judge it beyond that without careful study. But from your post, neither do you.