@bns: I agree, i only dig that the "existence-exist-axiom" follows from the axiom one exists himself. The consciousness axiom is one of "my" kind too:
Does not need to be true, one person could think a brain is just a system, and the system denies the existence of consciousness. Thinking about it more, consciousness is not really necessary axiom, one could consider 'consciousnesses' just systems, and this discussion and discussions about ethics just part of the workings. Your motivation on wanting ethics would then be "dont be the cancer"/"dont be the broken link in the clockwork". I do not think i could do without the consciousness axiom though, because i perceive myself, and others seem similar in this, and it just would take the value out of it for me.
Have tried reading up on Epistemology, that will take up a while.. But, i do have the feeling that people do not really talk about Epistemology but only mention it. Sometimes some says some opinion is based on his Epistemology, it seems weird that the "theory about knowledge" itself is not discussed. If i had to choose a epistemology now, i would chose internal models of the outside world, and rationality for math, since those are not based on what you see, but on what you assume. Then again, the assumption do depend on what you see. In physics: postulates, but many math axioms may be so-inspired too, and math may also be depend on the manifestation of it being in the physical universe.