I think you misunderstood my intention. That criticism was actually a more general one about abducting precise concepts of science to construct bad analogies, in this case Gödel’s theorems (which are actually meta-mathematical, i.e. mathematics about mathematics). It wasn’t directed specifically at you, so my bad.
'Luthon64
By all means Mefiante, the more you know the more you know.
The more I know the more I know I know little! 
Damn I feel that I am so far out of my depth. But I do think we are agreeing on most things albeit from different points. It would take me quite a while to absorb some of the things that Mefiante are saying i.e. research. At least let me give my two cents worth.
Just off my head I have one or two objections to the ‘brain in the vat’ thought experiment.
In Objectivism man (i.e. human beings) is considered one of the highest values i.e. man is an end in himself, at least this is my understanding. In the BitV thought experiment it is asked that you cut out your senses completely. It is not asked that you even doubt your senses but bypasses them completely. We humans learn everything through our senses without our senses we would not even know that there is a world out there. Ayn Rand goes into great lengths validating our senses. Now is the ‘object’ i.e. the Brain in the Vat human at all? No, is it not. It is a brain, taken out of its body, deprived of its own body being fed information from some computer. Now you want me to imagine how it would be like to be in a non-human state without my own senses to rely on. How can I truly imagine this since I am human and not a Brain in the Vat without senses.
And I am not very much in a hurry to want to doubt my senses. I know our brains can interpret what our senses tell us incorrectly but our senses convey it messages to our brains quite accurately. To have senses to rely on is what it means to be human.
Now I did have this same kind of discussion with my friends and we did indulge this for a while, this is roughly how the conversation went:
Friend, ‘How would you know that you are hooked up to a computer like in the movie the Matrix.
Me, ‘Well, I don’t know perhaps I would look for any inconsistencies in reality.’
Friend, ‘What if the computer where programmed to have no inconsistencies’
Me (impatiently), ‘I don’t know then, you tell us.’
Friend, ‘Well, I would think that if you the human would be able to come up with a truly unique idea, something that did not exist in reality before that thought would through the computer out and make it crash’
I thought to myself how can you come to a truly unique idea if all combinations of thought depends on our senses but I did not wish to pursue the matter further.
@Boogiemonster, I did not know that my statement, ‘How can you make conclusions of anything if is it not based on reality and has not purpose’, is Kant. Do you know his theories that well or where you able to look it up somehow on a database or something. If so please can you share since that would be interesting.
Ultimately, I am still a newbie to Objectivism and I think it is a lovely philosophy. I will have to learn it thoroughly before really moving on to anther.
PEACE
I think you’re still missing perhaps the essential point of the brain-in-the-vat thought experiment. You’re putting up points as if you are in a privileged position from which you can correctly tell the difference between what is real and what is not. But what if every single bit with no exceptions whatsoever of your “reality” is simulated, if the only reality you’ve ever known is a simulation? Then you would have no basis for comparison that would help you to separate the simulated parts from the real parts.
The experiment doesn’t at all ask you to bypass your senses or to cut them out completely; it asks that you think about what it would mean if every sensory experience of yours is a simulation from beginning to end. How would you distinguish between the simulation and the actual reality? Your thoughts on any number of things, including that you have a body (and indeed senses and a brain) could just as well be produced by constantly feeding the receptive part of “you” (whatever form that might actually take) a coherent pack of lies that sustains an ongoing illusion. You would not be able to spot any inconsistencies in reality because you have only the simulated reality as a reference point and everything you think you know is the product of that simulation.
In short, if everything you know and have ever known is an illusory simulation, there simply is no test that you can devise to ascertain the real reality of your situation. The brain-in-the-vat thought experiment is non-scientific because it cannot be falsified — at least not by the hypothetical brain. That’s why I labelled it “an intriguing bit of navel-gazing … at the same level of ultimate pointlessness as … Last Tuesdayism/Omphalos and all-out solipsism.”
'Luthon64
I suppose now I know what a deflated balloon feels like. 
Like Mefiante said, that’s exactly what is asked.
Friend, ‘Well, I would think that if you the human would be able to come up with a truly unique idea, something that did not exist in reality before that thought would through the computer out and make it crash’ I thought to myself how can you come to a truly unique idea if all combinations of thought depends on our senses but I did not wish to pursue the matter further.
Thoughts would exist in your brain, not the computer.
I did not know that my statement, ‘How can you make conclusions of anything if is it not based on reality and has not purpose’, is Kant.
That’s because it isn’t, you said it, refuting Kant, and I agree with you. In summary, I think his idea of reality is at first sight interesting, but doesn’t provide any new information. It sounds like we agree on that based on your statement in the quote above.
I am still a newbie to Objectivism and I think it is a lovely philosophy.
Me too, but skepticism is boundless.
But still a computer controlling me whose existence I cannot prove or even know of sounds awefully like the concept of god.
Think about it:
Keanu Reeves, ‘Did you know that we are all being controlled by a supercomputer’
Slim Shady, ‘No shit, tell me more’
Keanu Reeves, ‘Well, yes and there is this other reality out there that he exist in, like the real reality’
Slim Shady, ‘Wow, how do you know?’
Keanu Reeves, ‘I just know’
Slim Shady, ‘But can’t you prove this’
Keanu Reeves, ‘No, there is no way for you to know you just have to trust me, every thing you see around you is just an illusion.’
Some notes on Objectivism:
Rand described Kant as one of “two arch destroyers of reason in modern history” (together with Hume)(in a letter to Professor Hutt of the University of Virginia)
In another letter she answers some questions concerning her characters (quoted freely): “You say Roark is like a portrait of Jesus” This statement can mean many different things; if you mean that both are held as embodiments of the perfect man, a moral ideal–then you are right, but there the comparison must end"…and further on she says “there is a great contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the fisrt great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism—the inviolate sanctity of man’s soul…but when it came to the next question: a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one’s soul—Jesus gave men a code of altruism…in other words that in order to save one’s soul, one must love or help or live for others…which means the subordination of one’s soul to the soul of others” This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved.
“I have always understood morality to apply only to the actions open to man’s choice…morality cannot be divorced from free will…man’s essential nature is his ability to conceive a good idea or a depraved one. The nature of being endowed with free will is that he is capable of both good and evil and must make the choice…a robot, only capable of ‘good’ is neither good nor evil.”
“The fact that man can conceive a depraved idea does not make man depraved by nature. It merely leaves him what he is—free.”
“Every man creates his own moral character by the choices he makes”
All these quotes are from “Letters of Ayn Rand” Penguin Books 1997
Here’s a short piece of modified objectivism in my book:Christine (my heroine)says to a religionist:“Having said this I don’t deny you your right to help others if it gives you pleasure to do so, but then do it as an act of good will and not as a duty imposed either by yourself or by others such as a church or more importantly because a ‘need’ exists. To do it from the basis of guilt is again the immoral currency of the mystics of the world.”
I have found that once you let go of your mind-body dichotomy and you are able to accept the morality of Rational Selfishness, you finally realize this is the state in which man is supposed to live - powerful.
No "leap of faith" is necessary to accept reality. Rather, a "leap into the arbitrary' IS necessary to entertain any other possibility for which absolutely no evidence exists.
Got this from an Objectivist forum the socratic answer interesting.
Re: The brain-in-the vat.
“How can you make conclusions of anything if it is not based on reality and has not purpose.”
You cannot.
To make conclusion one can only from the evidence of one’s senses. The premise of the brain -in -the vat invalidates senses.
“Objectivism is dismissive of this. It’s morality states that those who are average don’t DESERVE a high standard of living due to personal flaws”
That’s true. In Objectivism nobody deserves any standard of living. However everybody can earn any standard of living in accordance to his/her ability. The low ability of some people doesn’t grant any rights on the life of those with high ability.Capitalism in Objectivism is primary a moral, not economical system based on individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. ( Capitalism, Unknown Ideal, 19.)
Such a system effectively prevent from the parasites to deserve what they never earned and to get it from those who did.