If you have a theory of mind then you must also have a theory of consciousness, but they are quite different things. If someone is said to lack or be deficient in theory of mind then they are regarded as having a certain kind of deficit or affliction, so that the richer one's theory of mind then presumably the better. It is quite the opposite with a theory of consciousness; the more of such a thing you have, the more implicitly integrated it is with your understanding of the world, the further away you are from experiencing the shock of the impossibility of there being any such thing as consciousness, the deeper you are embroiled in the dream of existence - which would be an affliction if there were anyone to be so afflicted. Most versions of ethics operate at the level of theory of mind. The equivalent in terms of theory of consciousness is concerned with the notion of sin. This is not an embryonic form of ethics, but an index of the reification of self. The sin of pride for example is a reified form of identity with God, as lust is the reification of bliss, or its quantification.