Within the first not even two minutes:

“People have asked what's the difference between my view and Bernardo's view, we both think consciousness is fundamental. […] Bernardo thinks the physical world is not fundamental, there is more fundamental reality underlying the physical world, whereas I think both the consciousness is fundamental and that the physical world is fundamental. How would you make sense of that? Well, […] the basic properties of physics are forms of consciousness […] the idea is actually, physics just tells us what physical properties do, how they behave. It doesn't really tell us what they are in their essential nature. So that opens up the possibility that they might turn out to be forms of consciousness.”

Frankly, it can't be more clearer than that. Where Kastrup and Goff go from there is a different matter altogether. The problem is, they play semantic games. It doesn't matter what is the nature of matter, because for all practical purposes, you cannot disregard the rules that govern it. So yes, physical world is consciousness (Goff) even though it's insubstantial in its essence (Kastrup). Thus e.g. dissecting physical world will never reveal consciousness, but e.g. no one can unthink death.