Anything about the self bumps into an immediate problem here. For instance I cannot prove to you that I'm conscious and not simply an automaton who's not actually thinking. My evidence for such is strictly personal - I can personally testify to my own experience of consciousness, but you have no reason to believe me since that's not evidence.

And in fact even for myself - perception is not necessarily valid evidence since perception can be distorted. If I am in a compelling VR game I might be more than willing to swear to the fact that I'm flying (if I wasn't otherwise aware of the situation) - while you simply look at me acting a fool standing still while vigorously flapping my arms.

... so at some point, one realizes one has pondered one's way into untestables and goes back to living. Or doesn't, I guess, and then gets kept up at night anxious about the notion that in some as-yet-unrealized future, an AI is forever torturing an identical copy of oneself that one cannot possibly ever meet.

The programming analogy to this kind of philosophy is writing design docs (or building a class hierarchy of abstracts) without ever writing implementation. Lots of work, but why should anyone outside the room care?

It contradicts the ideals of an evidence based system of values. Most of what we believe we believe because we think it is right, and there's always , more or less, viable arguments for most of any remotely reasonable view. And this applies to all people. For instance it was none other than Max Planck that observed, "Science progresses one funeral at a time."

I also think this is for the best. If one looks at the evidence of the skies it's indisputable that humanity lies at the center of the cosmos, with everything revolving around us - which, in turn, naturally leads into religious narratives around Earth. It's only thanks to these weirdos that adopted quite absurd sounding (for the time) systems of views and values, completely without meaningful evidence at first, that we were able to gradually expand, and correct, our understanding of the universe.

And this doesn't just apply to the ancient past. Einstein's observation that the speed of light stays fixed while the rate of passage of time itself is variable, to enable the former, sounds so utterly and absolutely absurd. In many ways the real challenge in breaking through to relativity wasn't the math or anything like that (which, in fact, Einstein himself lacked when first developing the concept) but accepting that a concept that sounds so wrong might actually be right.

At the same time, however, Einstein's theory was confirmed by direct observation of the gravitational lensing of starlight past our sun during an eclipse.

The difference, to my mind, between science and philosophy is that the philosophy of relativity can exist independent of such confirming evidence. But the scientific theory cannot.

It's always important, when dabbling in philosophy, to keep track of when one has wandered so far out on the branch of reason that one is no longer supported by the trunk of evidence.