Hmm, I just thought about something bnonn said. Something like god maintains the uniformity of nature, and that it could not be explained in a different way. That would seem similar to assuming the everything-is-a-thing interpretation(first thing in my previous post), and adding, that what we call "external world" by saying one of the consciousnesses is purposefully thinking a world with "uniform behavior". This, while denying the possibility of the "normal" external world. Not that i believe this though. It seems to be too complicated too. (This is based on what bonn said, not what he believes. What he believes seems to be some giant biblical apparatus, that cannot give human-readable output )

BTW bnonnn would be hard to have this conversation with,(indeed, i applaud the patience showed on the "What is faith?" thread ) indeed, if anyone shows up with too many biblical references, I think we should point them to other threads. I think that this thread should be about defining axioms bottom-up, not from above not in any way from above, including bashing with bibles. What do you think?
I even think ideas for axioms that you do not think are reasonable but have some merits could be interesting.

So how do you know this "universal" standard? It is basically the same question as i confronted; How to know what another being feels. My answer was, to basically do it "intuitively", just by what i naturally associate.(this was reply #18) Do you use a similar method? Why i think my "ethics-axiom" is "better" is that it needs nothing absolute, like an universal standard. I guess, the practice of how to determine what other creatures feel undoes part of that. However, the axiom seems to acknowledge that, while yours denies it. (your axiom seems simpler though.)