Faraday was first and foremost an experimentalist, and everything else followed from there. That alone is perhaps a significant difference with the kind of reas

Faraday was first and foremost an experimentalist, and everything else followed from there. That alone is perhaps a significant difference with the kind of reasoning we were initially talking about. Additionally, like you point out, others were able to build upon his work and use it to generate new hypotheses and draw new conclusions. That is a fundamental aspect of any good research; that it enables new activity and insights, often in ways not envisioned by the original researchers. So if you want to say “consciousness can be described as a chaotic attractor”, then you need to say it in a way that lets others make novel predictions, invalidate previous conclusions and establish new ones, about the behavior of consciousness using the established and well understood toolbox of chaotic attractors. My question was about whether the books had subsequently enabled such inquiries.