The Generativity Question: How Explanatory Productivity Is Misvalued

Abstract: A recurring critique of consciousness-first frameworks—often framed as pragmatic rather than partisan—is that they fail to "build" in the way successful sciences do. This essay argues that the critique rests on two conflations: (1) conflating ontology with methodology, crediting physicalism with explanatory achievements that belong to empirical method; and (2) conflating scientific stages, applying late-stage mechanistic benchmarks to what are early-stage constraint-unification programs. The essay does not argue that consciousness-first frameworks have already matched physicalism's theoretical articulation. It argues that the standard by which "generativity" is measured encodes assumptions that pre-disqualify non-production frameworks before assessment begins. Correcting this miscalibration does not guarantee any framework's success. It ensures that evaluation operates on appropriate terrain. Part of the Return to Consciousness research program — 22 philosophical essays exploring consciousness-first metaphysics. Full project: https://brunoton.github.io/return-to-consciousness/