Research · Working Paper · WP-01 · 2026
Comminution and the Hard Problem: A Précis.
Whether the comminution of a rock into aggregate raises a welfare-relevant question independent of the hard problem of consciousness, and what work that distinction does in cost-effectiveness estimation.
Abstract
The cost-effectiveness case for lithic welfare is often confused with a position on the hard problem of consciousness. This paper argues that the two questions are separable. We propose a decision-theoretic frame in which expected value calculations across populations of contested moral status do not require resolution of underlying phenomenal questions, only a well-specified credence distribution and a coherent comparison procedure. We illustrate with the canonical case: the comminution of a previously coherent rock body into aggregate.
Key claims
- A credence-weighted expected value can be coherently computed under deep uncertainty, including uncertainty about whether the entity in question has phenomenal experience at all.
- The argument for funding lithic welfare research does not require any positive claim about rock sentience; it requires only a credence interval that is bounded away from zero.
- Comminution provides a useful test case because the event is acute, well-defined, and tractable to count — even where its welfare significance remains in doubt.
Limitations
The framework is sensitive to the choice of credence distribution and to the comparison population. We discuss the two-envelope difficulty in greater detail in WP-03. Empirical grounding remains the central open problem.
Pre-print available on request via contact. Peer review pending.