Comment by thrance
I'm wary of any classification that puts humans in a special category of their own, as the crown jewel of the tree of life (many such cases).
> The ability to model the internal dialogues of others.
It feels like someone spent a lot of time searching for something only humans can do, and landed on something related to language (ignoring animals that communicate with sounds too). How is this ability any different than the "Theory of mind"? And why is it so important that it requires a new category of its own?
Fair points. However I don't put humans in a special category, so much as I say I know at least humans are this conscious. I then cite some research on Australian magpies which suggests they may be so conscious too.
It is not different from theory of mind; theory of mind is an important part of it, just not the whole picture. I argue access consciousness and theory of mind go hand in hand, which is a significant departure from how access consciousness is traditionally understood.