Philosophical question

Philosophers seem to be in search of the initial assumptions that make the rest of philosophy work. The philosophical equivalent of numbers and basic arithmetic in maths.

I am of the opinion that the base premise is: humans are pattern-matching animals. Our brains are just wired that way. I was thinking this morning that perhaps additional to this we live our lives on the border between an imaginary world and the real world. This fits within the pattern match axiom because the imaginary world is our image to which we match the input from the real world. We are able, then, to modify our image, if necessary, to match the real world more closely. This observation pays service to previous philosophers' work on the interplay between the mind and the physical world, for example Hume and Descartes go so far as to say that only the imaginary world exists. Kant's meta-image of the world is very close to this observation, without my initial axiom. He seems to take this second observation as the initial axiom.

Further to the new observation, I then added that animals are more in the real world and less in the imaginary world. Perhaps because they are more easily able (for various reasons) to modify their image of the real world, but they do seem to sit more wholly on the 'real' side of the line: not bothering with the aesoteric subject that bother us humans.

The question still remains as to whether we can trust our senses that the real part of the world exists.

Then also I feel I must also think about a-priori knowledge. For this I trust the single axiom that good/bad is the only a-priori knowledge. With good and bad comes the ability to reach the decison that a pattern matches well or ill, and hence the rest of human knowledge.

All of this arguement is embryonic in form. I should develop it to investigate it's implications. Note to self: read more in the Socratic 'dumb questions' that continue to test other philosophical theories. Another note to self: see who else's theories match mine.