The rabbi is a rationalist, isn’t he?

I didn't understand exactly what the basis for your intuition is? That you feel/experience that you do exist in reality, for example?

Indeed, I assumed that the Rabbi would make this claim, and therefore, I wanted to attack it from a slightly different angle. I agree with you that you would indeed have reason to believe in the senses in the case where you have no decision for either side – “feel” true to me that what I experience is more true than not. But there is a very serious reason why not to believe in the senses:
After all, there is more chance that there is a flaw and error in my senses than to assume that my senses are true. After all, there are (supposedly) infinite possibilities that the senses are not true. And for them to be true there are much fewer possibilities. If so, it turns out that I should assume that they are not true.
Here, there is already a significant basis for understanding against believing in experience about the truth of the senses and the system of cognition, etc.
I would be happy to answer this very fundamental question.

Probability is a tool for dealing with lack of information. Also, the assumption that all possibilities are equally likely is just a default for someone who lacks any information. But in our case I have information: I understand directly that my perceptions are probably correct (even if not with certainty).
For example, suppose I saw that a die roll gave the result 5. You could argue that most likely it did not fall on 5 and therefore my vision must have deceived me. But in my opinion (!) the possibility of 5 is not equally likely to all the others. I saw it. The chance that I am wrong is small in my estimation (until proven otherwise).

Thank you!
But this is the question itself: Do not see the understanding of the correctness of the recognition as certain but as doubt. And anyway, on the side that it is doubt, then it leans more towards the majority. You cannot answer the question that it is not doubt for me. This is exactly the question.

You can ask the same question about the cube: Don't believe your eyes, but rather the probability calculation. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the argument, not the one who makes the argument. We must settle the argument with difficulty, but we must not make the argument with difficulty. I think I've exhausted it.

Don't run away, Honorable K.K. Ro'm Shalit!
So, why do you mention in the notebook that one must believe that there is a planner in order not to find oneself in a situation that most likely arose by chance? Here you claim that I can solve this because I don't see it as a normal probabilistic situation that is not already well-known.

I explained this in my notebook and in my book. I emphasized the difference between ordinary skepticism and my argument, P.S.

I would like to know if I understood correctly,
You claim that if, for example, we were to assume that we were never created but were always ancient.
And now we have doubts about whether our system of cognition is correct or not.
The reason to assume that it is incorrect – is that most systems are probably incorrect.
The reason to assume that it is correct – (Assuming that.) We understand directly that our perceptions are probably correct.
So in such a case, it is better for us to assume that there is no reason to be satisfied here at all, the only reason why we should doubt that most systems of cognition are wrong, is when we do not have information. But here we do have information and therefore why should we be satisfied?!
—–
But, when we assume that we were created by an arbitrary and random process, here there is a serious reason to be satisfied – Why assume that what we experience is indeed connected in any way to reality itself?!
Therefore, if we assume that we were created, we must assume that there was someone who took care to match our knowledge with the world.

I would like to know if I am right in the division? Is there something else that I may not have noticed? 🙂 I would really appreciate it if you could check this.

PS I have a question regarding the evidence from the above epistemology ” Who took care to match the creator's understanding to the world? After all, his knowledge can also be questioned.

I will answer one last time. If you are intending to ask a normal skeptical question, there is no answer to it and it is a waste of all of our time. If you are intending to raise a specific reason to be satisfied - I have already answered that.

Regarding questions about the insights of God, please contact Him. I was dismissed from His embassy on earth.

I meant, did I understand correctly, when there is a specific reason to be satisfied, not ordinary skepticism.
The reason is that most cognitive systems are probably flawed. If so, it is reasonable to assume that we also have a flawed cognitive system.
You answered that you check the plausibility when we have no data and then all options have the same weight and anyway it is better to follow the majority - to assume that my system is flawed.
But when I experience that it is correct, then I give it a higher weight than the competitors.

On the other hand, then how is this different from the skepticism you raised towards the argument from evolution? That to the extent that I assume that I was created randomly, then I am in an internal contradiction between these basic assumptions. But on the other hand, in the question above, it can be answered that I was created intentionally or that I am an ancestor. And therefore, this is ordinary skepticism.

The question about the designer is a logical question because otherwise you have not solved anything. (Maybe if you assume that he is an ancestor then it is not difficult as I said before or that he is the cause of himself).

First, it is not true that most systems of cognition are defective unless they are created just like that. Neither evolution (after the process) nor divine creation creates defective systems.
Second, when we assume divine creation, then there is no creation of many systems and there is nothing to enter into probability. God created a good system and that is it. Only evolution speaks of accidental formation (of the laws of nature and within them of life and within our cognition).
[In parentheses, regarding evolution, you do not assume that it is created randomly but rather draw a conclusion. The question is what this conclusion itself, which comes from your tools of cognition and scientific thinking, is based on.]

As mentioned, contact the embassy.

So in fact I can argue that there is simply a designer who made sure to create me straight, and then I am coherent with my belief in the sensory system, and not get into all the complications with probability (that most systems are not good, etc.). Because I simply do not assume that this is a random situation.

Indeed. This is the essence of a "theological" argument (in the fourth notebook).