You argue there that one cannot coherently hold the atheistic worldview and at the same time maintain belief in our sensory system.
I understand what you’re saying—that I should indeed assume it’s random when I have no further information. But not here (where I believe in their correctness).

But why should I believe in the memory system (and the sensory system) at all? I mean, for all you know maybe it’s fake, or lying, etc.
I mean, what are these basic assumptions grounded in? After all, it will never be possible to prove them…
So then is there no truth in the world at all?!

I didn’t see this issue addressed there.

You’re raising the skeptical question, and I have nothing to say about it. If you’re a skeptic, then you’re a skeptic. I don’t talk with skeptics because there’s nothing I can do with them. But none of this has anything specifically to do with memory, because as I wrote, the same is true of sight, morality, all our senses, thinking, and anything else you want.

Indeed.
So you have no argument at all for the non-skeptical belief?
Doesn’t that seem really strange to you…?

Not at all. It’s exactly like the fact that I have no argument for logic. Simply because there is no such thing as an argument for logic or an argument against skepticism. All right, we’ve exhausted this.

Rabbi,
What’s the point of answering Y.? There’s no reason to assume he remembers that he asked the questions, and no reason to assume he actually asked them and that it isn’t just imagination, and so on.

Indeed.

If there’s no rational answer, then why does the Rabbi assume otherwise?
It seems like a completely arbitrary assumption…

I’ll explain one last time, because it’s impossible to repeat such simple things again and again.
A basic assumption, by definition, is something that has no explanation. You can’t provide reasons for it or ground it in something outside itself, and that is precisely why it is a basic assumption. If we could ground it, then the new ground would become our basic assumptions, and again it would have no ground. Therefore, asking for justification or a foundation for basic assumptions is simply a misunderstanding.
But there are those who make the mistake of thinking that because of this, basic assumptions are arbitrary. In their view, anything that cannot be grounded is arbitrary. But that is of course nonsense, because every grounding relies on basic assumptions, and if those themselves are arbitrary, then anything grounded on them cannot be any better than they are. So that too would be arbitrary. In fact everything would be arbitrary, and that is the basis of skepticism. There is no answer to that, nor is there any need to give one. Put differently: the assumption that only things with a grounding are non-arbitrary is itself ungrounded, so why should I accept it?!
By contrast, according to my non-skeptical approach, basic assumptions do not require grounding. Their correctness is the result of observing reality (see “Truth and Not Stable”). And if you ask who says that this observation is correct and not misleading, I will not answer for exactly the same reason. There is neither any way nor any need to answer that.
Bottom line: if you’re a skeptic—then be a skeptic, and good health to you. But someone who is not a skeptic is not troubled by these questions and need not be troubled by them. Therefore there is no point in discussing all this.