I think we should try keep numbers of axioms low. (aswel as try to find new ones, hehe )
I was thinking about these:
And also my distinction of thing that is creature. It would seem to me that these can be merged. The external world is just something with a specific nature, and creatures are just things too, only we attribute Consciousness to it. I do think it is restrictive, but interesting nonetheless.
When coming to philosophy of physics the external world thing probably has to return, since axioms like "uniformity of universe behavior" have to be defined.

I was also thinking about DChristopher's axiom about afterlife that i "refuted" and what hidden axioms was needed there. The sentence i mentioned: "but it is foolish to make decisions which are senseless with respect to the physical world, on the chance that one will be rewarded for such senselessness in an unseen, spiritual world." seemingly implicitly states the chance on such a thing low. But why? I am guessing we could argue this by making another axiom.
-The simpler explanation is more likely to be true.
I am not sure if this is logic from probability-theory(and associated axioms) or an axiom though. And if you want to reduce it to probability theory, you will have to deal with the interpretations of probability theory too.(which is a topic on itself)
Another way of refuting it is the "uniformness of nature" axiom, with which existence of an afterlife would (uhm perhaps)violate. Because people presumably do not die in afterlife, and because it is unclear how they arive it this afterlife.(hehe, repeating what DChristopher said, in a way)
Another axiom-idea that:
-axioms may not say anything about the external world
If you think it is reasonable to presume that the afterworld is a form of external world, and its existence would need an axiom, it would "refute" the irrelevant-afterlife-axiom too.

On my "ethics-axioms", i have the viewpoint that these are really goals, but you can base them on axioms.
About that, what you said here, was really meant with this sentence.
With the sentence DChristopher mentioned, I was aiming more on how to achieve increasing 'average feel good', in the face of not knowing what other people feel. (and as you noted, if you think people are not clever enough to use their freedom to be happier, do not give it to them)

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.)

I only stated some assumptions because they appeared reasonable at a glance and we needed something to start with. As I said in my original post, anyone is free to argue against my original assumptions.

Thanks for pointing that out. I think that doesn't quite mean that I don't exist; I think it may be more metaphysical than that. If anyone is a Buddhist, I would love to hear you expound on that idea in this context.

I think that is a valid axiom to take. Not one I would choose, but nonetheless creates a ... somewhat ... consistent worldview.
I agree. In fact, that's really what I had in mind when I began this thread.
I think what both you and DC are saying here -- and I agree -- is that there EXISTS some external ethic. Finding out what that is: different story. But the point is, that there is good and bad that exist independent of what I happen to think/feel.

So, let me attempt to list what seems to me like what we have so far:

1. There is a world which exists, external to me and you.

2. We are able to perceive the world, i.e. we are not under a permanent state of delusion.

3. There is an external ethic, i.e. right/wrong, good/bad, exist.

4. What we (beings of any sort) do has a real, tangible impact on the world.

NOTE: By world I mean, whatever exists, not specifically the earth.

Any comments?

Um...I'm not sure how you managed to boil this thread down to four axioms (I'm sure I've seen a dozen, and I had no idea how to combine them properly) BUT, I'm pretty happy with that list as a "new" starting point.

Well, I thought there were several which actually said the same thing as #3, and I threw some of them out as being unclear.

Seriously, I wasn't really throwing any out, but I didn't list any that were unclear. This is what seemed like the "consensus list." I'm real anal about being organized... Sorry.

Quite the opposite, I declare, out of the blue, that my goal should be to increase "feel-good" of all creatures weighed by some (admittedly arbritrary) measure based on the creature. (i mean ants have low weight, cats more, humans even more)
Problem is of course that you cannot really know how other creatures feel. So the assumption is, that by using what is naturally associate, and by what creatures do when given freedoms, you can get an idea of what makes them feel good.
I do not see how this is absolute, the viewpoint admits it is intrinsically bound the creature having the viewpoint personally perceives things. (i'd dislike declaring things absolute)
How would you define ethic? My definition is that a persons ethics is his goal based on his axioms<edit>I mean the goal is defined using the axioms, not that the axioms define the goal, ethic-axioms are really just the goal.</edit>, but not on specific circumstance. In that sense, saying that there is a universal ethic is equivalent to saying that, ultimately everyones goal is the same, only the circumstance differs. (eh feel i encountered problem with universal and absolute, i mean, that something is universal, the same for everyone, does not mean they perceive it the same.)

BTW asides, considering the possible existence of multiple external worlds, i would criticise some my earlier "refutements" of afterlife.

So let me see if I understand: You agree that there is a universal ethic, i.e. we all should try to act a certain way because it's right. Furthermore, you suggest that this ethic is essentially determined by a weighted amalgam of the needs/desires of living things.

I propose an intermediate axiom:
- All living things have "value."
- Things that are good for a living thing are Good, but must be weighed against things that are good for other living things.

How does that sound?

According to wikipedia there are two ways of looking at ethics, realism and non-realism. Realism basically states ethics absolute, non-realism does not. I guess our goal-axioms both have both variants.

Retrying those goal-axioms: (again )
-There are things that have a feel-good.
-Those things also have a weight of importance.
-The goal is to try get feel-good up, based on the the weight.

Everything that is unknown is guessed with what is said before, association, and seeing what creatures do with given freedoms.
Comparing with the realism side of your axiom: "there is a absolute good, and you should follow it" In this axiom you do not know what this good is. I guess practically you could use association aswel.
So, from the realism side, axiom(sets) both have absolute statements. Practically, though, both have a layer that is not absolute; what is known for each creature. (and the associations used to deal with it) Of course you may have another idea for this practical layer. (like for some, absolute belief of the bible/koran.)
There is another sense which could be called non-absolute; perhaps not every creature follows the same ethics.

BTW plz stop quoting the entire replies, especially if they are long.

Thankyou for expending such effort and cognitive power to understand one of the most complicated, widespread, and deep philosophies humanity subscribes to, and which millions of thinkers believe. That's almost as bad as forming an opinion of the Democrats by watching Fox.

SigmaX

Definitely arbitrary. Does "feel-good" include parties, weed, beer, and video games? Or does it lean more towards educational standards, advanced social skills, and personal accomplishments (From washing dishes to inventing fusion power)?

SigmaX

Sorry.

@SigmaX I guess you are asking me to define feel-good.
I am sure feel-good is not the same thing for each creature.(although it need not be, by my ethics-axioms) For a creature, partying, smoking weed, drinking beer, playing video games could indeed be feel-good inducing. So can social skills, education and personal accomplishments, but these could also just be ways of acheving this feel-good.
My answer is that i cannot define feel-good, although assuming my set of axioms, calling the goal i mentioned (in prev post)good, can be seen as a definition of good itself. I recon that this structure adds some properties to good aswel. The word 'good' requires as definition as much as feel-good, it was the structure to restrict the nature of good i was looking for.

My "structure" to define the 'goal' or 'good' is that it, that it disallows any punishment and hate where it does not help anyone. So if Hitler got layed before his execution, it would be a good thing, as long as no-one is negatively affected. I am not talking about rape, infact assume the girl is neutrally affected somehow. Of course even knowing would affect many people badly in this case. It does also remove the state of the universe(external world) from the picture, only creatures matter. Of course creatures are affected by the universe, and even part of it.

BTW are there other words needing definition? Well, a lot, but some of them discussable? Other ways of defining 'good'?

From whence does this "external ethic" come? This begs the question, and can therefore not be an axiom.

I expend the same dismissing Mithros, Zeus, Ra, Jesus, and Allah. The number of people deluded by such mythologies are irrelevant to its ultimate truth or falsehood (ad populum).

And I don't need Fox to tell me what to think of anyone. I hate everyone by default.

A thing having a value implies a valuer. An axiom must stand on its own. Therefore, this cannot be an axiom.

TBH, this also removes the possibility of ethical axioms. Sorry.

Go learn what an axiom is, and then come back.

Given that you quoted me to begin this topic, you apparently thought I knew what an axiom was then. Now that I disagree with you, I have lost that knowledge? How convenient.

For the record:

From Axiom
Have a fine Memorial Day.

@utabintarbo: I didn't decide your understanding of axioms was inadequate when you disagreed with me; I decided that when you made wrong statements. I can also quote things:

P.S. It would be nice if you would include citations when you quote things.

For the record: Euclid was not wrong. He was correct in the plane. It was later discovered that there are alternate geometries, not that his was wrong. In fact, much geometry is still based on his work.

I think you can use axioms in new axioms..
They are all begging the question. The question how 'feel-good' was defined i answerred with that 'good'(or external ethic) was not defined either. The definition of consciousness talks about 'perceiving' without defining it. The Law of Identity does not state what a 'behavior' is (in first post plenty of synonyms though.) Neigh-every word we use in discussion has not been defined, so we assume that language makes sense anyway.
It seems to me that mathematical axioms do not have these issues, and perhaps axioms can be made to be similar to math. I do not think we are up to that though.
Despite these issues, i think the discussion is usefull anyway. So perhaps we should try focus what can be argued ignoring begging-the-question arguments and/or finding axioms that are interesting. How to rate an axiom interesting is still a problem by the way; simplicity is so far the closest to an requirement i think most of us will agree on. (but what is simple) 'Structures' build on axioms can be more complicated of course.
Also lets not focus too much be for or against axioms, and explore what axioms are there. In this vain, by the way, i will try to shut up about the feel-good-axioms. (unless asked, of course.)

@utabintarbo,SigmaX As discussed before, we are taking the bottom-up approach here, so please take your religious discussions to another thread plz (not that you cant mention religion, but it simply has to