I'm not rejecting it outright - I think the concept is too simplistic.It seems that a more consistent position would be that you don't know whether what you perceive is a delusion, objectively true, or some combination of the two. In other words, you might be a brain in a vat, but you might not be. You wouldn't know, if you were, but you might also not know if you weren't.
Consider our plane of existence an incredibly self-consistent shared delusion. I'm perfectly cool with discussing the particulars of that delusion, in order to refine it for the betterment of mankind. Or just for kicks. But I still think we're all basically barking.
Or you could stop the silliness, but I'm guessing you've already evaluated that option
First of all, I never claimed to be self-consistent. I'm pretty sure I'm not imagining the universe but I'm not that sure.
And thirdly, if you take our silliness... what have we left?
@Hearteater: Objective evidence?