"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.
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.
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."
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.