It is precisely because their advocacy for metaphysical idealism is unusual for people with their academic qualifications that they are worth mentioning, and why its worthwhile to listen to them explain their positions at length.
Appeal to authority is where you present a person's status or credentials as primary evidence that their argument is correct. I've done no such thing here.
Op writes "I’m writing this comment so that people who want to know more about alternative theories of consciousness (to materialism/physicalism [1]) can know where to go to find well-argued positions on the topic."
They very specifically state that these people are good points of entry for "well-argued positions on the topic." Linking to specific literature would have been better, but this isn't "materialism/physicalism is wrong because of these people's credentials."
The problem is that while the post looks structurally like an appeal to authority, the first two appear to be advanced qualifications in areas completely unrelated to the question and the third is at best vaguely related. (It threw me on first reading too...)
The meta fallacy on display here is the Fallacy Fallacy.
For every logical fallacy, there is a fallacious application of it to a given example of rhetoric. You've committed the Argument from Authority Fallacy Fallacy: citing people who believe to have worthwhile opinions, and including their accomplishments, is not argument from authority. Argument from authority is claiming someone is correct based on their authority. Which isn't what GP was doing.
"The argument from authority is a logical fallacy (also known as ad verecundiam fallacy), and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
The meta logical fallacy of treating Wiki itself as an authority isn't an intended pun.