tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post890220454622878655..comments2023-10-07T11:03:10.202-05:00Comments on Autist's Corner: On Attributing ConsciousnessLindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10860246538349067232noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-48604767974307284032009-03-08T15:12:00.000-05:002009-03-08T15:12:00.000-05:00I have a rather long blog which talks about this. ...I have a rather long blog which talks about this. I see it as the fundamental trade-off along the autism spectrum, trading off a "theory of mind" for a "theory of reality". A theory of mind is necessary to communicate with others because it allows one to impute the mental state that lead to the communication data stream. <BR/><BR/>http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/2008/10/theory-of-mind-vs-theory-of-reality.html<BR/><BR/>The NT habit of anthropomorphizing everything and attributing consciousness to inanimate objects is a consequence of their over active theory of mind. They impute communication and consciousness when it isn't there, a type 1 error.daedalus2uhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10416564922288784455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-530548799681444324.post-90491743255429862842009-02-11T10:56:00.000-06:002009-02-11T10:56:00.000-06:00that's interesting. i also found myself thinking a...that's interesting. i also found myself thinking about religions and attribution of consciousness. the idea of smth moving (and until u understand the 'causes', you temporarily ask if it's conscious) - in some worldviews, it can legitimately be thought of as a conscious being (for instance, a tree). within a christian worldview, it can be construed as a sign from god. but for the rational being, consciousness becomes linked with reason (and the assumption here is of one single type of reason, maybe logics?). <BR/><BR/>i don't think i have a point, just that these things came to mind.thinkingdifferencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04793349270097291638noreply@blogger.com