So why isn't "the spirit guides" a good axiom?

Simple—it can lead anywhere. Different "spiritual expeiences" lead to different destinations, often incompatible ones. For one it leads to Buddhism, another Protestantism, another Mormonism, another Islam, another ISIS.

The correct axioms are those that would lead two unrelated species on two different planets (or at least, Native Americans physically isolated from the Old World) to believe similar things. These are axioms that don't tell you where to go but still lead people to the same place.

As far as I know, I rely on only two foundational axioms:

1. My mind has conscious monadal elements.
2. All other beliefs MUST be based on evidence and logic.

Note that these two beliefs are themselves empirical:

I observe that I seem to be monadal, and that evidence/logic "work" in real life if used correctly (where "correctly" means "in such a way that they seem to work better than anything else").

What do these axioms mean?

"Monadal" means an indivisible unit of substance viewed as a basic element of physical reality. "Conscious" means "having qualia". "Qualia" are basic elements of experience, such as "the redness of red" or "how a texture feels".

(1) is axiomatic because there's no separate evidence for this "phenomenal consciousness", and I believe it because it is the foundation of my morality.

(2) is axiomatic because logic cannot prove its own correctness or its value in reality. Its value and correctness can be seen inductively, but not deductively. If you deduce the correctness of logic using logic, you end up relying on circular reasoning, which is a logical error.

Likewise for evidence—I don't know how to prove the importance of evidence, it's just evident that (Bayesian) evidence-based belief formation "works better" than everything else people propose. It allows belief convergence of isolated groups, rather than the usual divergence.

The word "MUST" is included because without it, you'll tend to adopt other axioms. Axioms are bad because they cannot be proven and they tend to lead to inherently irreconcilable conflicts with other people who believe different axioms; therefore, it's best to have few of them.

These two seem to be enough, and perhaps if The Hard Problem of Consciousness were solved, we would only need one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

Okay, but all ideas including monadal consciousness and evidence-based reasoning are themselves memes. So isn't my own belief system "meme-based reasoning" just like everyone else's?

It seems like there's some truth to that, since I've always had a taste for reason and logic.

Still, I was a Mormon. Basically for 30 years I *badly wanted* to believe in it, yet it turned out to be false. I think this gives me a unique perspective on the dangers of choosing beliefs according to taste. My life was a cautionary tale on believing things you want to be true.

Ultimately though, people do choose their own beliefs. Why choose my axioms, then? Again, I would only point out that

1. every axiom is an irreconcilable difference that can cause human conflict. Bob insists Axiom X is true, Joe insists X is false. Since axioms are unprovable,

there's no way to resolve the disagreement.

2. Evidence and reason work and are broadly accepted and uncontroversial, so "all other beliefs MUST be based on evidence and logic" is a good axiom. This axiom isn't sufficient to derive morality, though; hence the previous axiom.