It's very difficult to be charitable toward this kind of philosophical dabbling. The most glaring absurdity is the performative contradiction of appealing to evolution and quantum mechanics to prove that the world is an illusion. If "the world" is an illusion, then we have evidence for neither evolution nor quantum mechanics. If evolution and quantum mechanics rob us of the possibility of knowing the world as it is, then we can't possibly appeal to evolution and quantum mechanics since, after all, we can't know them to be true. If evolution and/or quantum mechanics do indeed lead us toward these absurd conclusions, then clearly evolution and/or quantum mechanics are demonstrably false, and Hoffman would have deployed a successful reductio ad absurdum to show that at least one of them is. Instead, Hoffman destroys the very reality that made possible both the evidence and these theories in the first place. It's somewhat analogous to beginning with the premise that root 2 is rational, deducing a contradiction and then claiming that what you've shown is that numbers don't really exist.

Apart from that, neuroscience itself seems to suffer from a certain myopia about what it takes for granted, metaphysically speaking. The source of many of the problems in the philosophy of mind today have their origin in a lingering legacy of Descartes' mechanistic metaphysics in modern and contemporary thought. This legacy equally afflicts materialists who still cling to a Cartesian view of matter (in fact they're in even worse shape than dualists, having jettisoned what dualists use to account for things like color). If you want to make headway, this Cartesian legacy needs to be exorcised from our thinking. Otherwise, you'll keep collapsing back into Cartesian dualism, panpsychism or, worse, eliminativism.