Bouwsma, Putnam, and Zhai offer three different routes to the no-illusion view of simulation scenarios. All three routes can lead to what I think is the correct view of the Cartesian skeptical problem: the subject in Cartesian scenarios has largely true beliefs and is not deceived. However, all three routes rest on strong and implausible philosophical views that I reject. As a result, I think that none of these three philosophers has given a strong argument for the no-illusion view nor a plausible analysis of just why it is true.
