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.

The author did not commit a logical fallacy. They referenced some people worth reading if you wanted some various opinions on a controversial subject.

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 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 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...)