ChatGpt: Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion

[Atla]

Hey mf, you are getting emotional.

Can you present something more rational and intellectual.
Where are your supporting references?

In the indirect realism topic for example where you failed to counter my comments. Actually you failed to counter anything I wrote for like the last 3 years.

Handwaving without justifications is a "chickening out" fallacy.

Prove the below is wrong?

[ChatGpt] "Conclusion
Your view that when indirect realists insist on a real, mind-independent reality constitutively beyond the empirical, they are reifying an illusion, is reasonable from a Kantian perspective.
Kant would argue that such claims overstep the bounds of what can be known and mistakenly treat regulatory ideas as constitutive realities. Therefore, insisting on the constitutive existence of noumena or things-in-themselves as real independent realities is, according to Kant, a philosophical error."

Atla, the above is the last nail ..

Why should I prove it wrong when I agreed a hundred times that it's correct?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is one good example that show indirect realism is chasing an illusion.

Is the Star, Proxima Centauri [4.2 l.y.] Real?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40154

Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework. -WIKI

When a indirect realist sees the star, proxima centuari in the night sky, the implication is there is a real proxima centuari out there existing as it really is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

According to indirect realism, there is a proxima centuari as it really is which is not as perceived.
But we know the the star, proxima centuari in the night sky is not the proxima centuari as-it-really-is because what we are seeing are light that are 4.2 b l.y. old.

There is a possibility there is no proxima centuari as-it-really-is in the present real time [say t1] had imploded and does not exist at t1.
If that is the case, then indirect realists are chasing an illusion.
This is very possible because the infinite numbers of stars we see in the night sky or via the JWST could be million or billion of light years away, thus very possible they don't exist in the present real time.
This increase the confidence level highly that indirect realism [as defined] is chasing an illusion.

In the case of proxima centuari there is an inherent 4.2 l.y. REALITY-GAP.
Even with things within nano-seconds away from the empirical self, in principle there is the inherent REALITY-GAP in terms of nano-second.
This mean that humans will eternally never close that REALITY-GAP and know things as-they-really-are.

In this case, the idea of things as-they-really-are is a frivolous idea and nonsensical, what is the point of clinging to this idea if humans will eternally never close that REALITY-GAP and know things as-they-really-are.

My point is when indirect realists [as defined] who are subset of philosophical realists insist there are really real things as-they-really-are, they are reifying nonsense and illusions as real. This is mysticism based on faith.
As I had argued why philosophical and indirect realists reify nonsense and illusions as real is driven psychologically from an evolutionary default.

[Atla]

Here is one good example that show indirect realism is chasing an illusion.

Is the Star, Proxima Centauri [4.2 l.y.] Real?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40154

Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework. -WIKI

When a indirect realist sees the star, proxima centuari in the night sky, the implication is there is a real proxima centuari out there existing as it really is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

According to indirect realism, there is a proxima centuari as it really is which is not as perceived.
But we know the the star, proxima centuari in the night sky is not the proxima centuari as-it-really-is because what we are seeing are light that are 4.2 b l.y. old.

There is a possibility there is no proxima centuari as-it-really-is in the present real time [say t1] had imploded and does not exist at t1.
If that is the case, then indirect realists are chasing an illusion.
This is very possible because the infinite numbers of stars we see in the night sky or via the JWST could be million or billion of light years away, thus very possible they don't exist in the present real time.
This increase the confidence level highly that indirect realism [as defined] is chasing an illusion.

In the case of proxima centuari there is an inherent 4.2 l.y. REALITY-GAP.
Even with things within nano-seconds away from the empirical self, in principle there is the inherent REALITY-GAP in terms of nano-second.
This mean that humans will eternally never close that REALITY-GAP and know things as-they-really-are.

In this case, the idea of things as-they-really-are is a frivolous idea and nonsensical, what is the point of clinging to this idea if humans will eternally never close that REALITY-GAP and know things as-they-really-are.

My point is when indirect realists [as defined] who are subset of philosophical realists insist there are really real things as-they-really-are, they are reifying nonsense and illusions as real. This is mysticism based on faith.
As I had argued why philosophical and indirect realists reify nonsense and illusions as real is driven psychologically from an evolutionary default.

INDIRECT REALISM IS NOT TRANSCENDENTAL REALISM. Of course the "reality-gap" is included in indirect realism so we know that the Proxima Centauri out there has aged 4.2 years at the time of our perception, and may have exploded by now. But aging, change isn't the same as non-existence. I can't believe these things need to be explained and you think you have a gotcha here.

Also, not sure why you think it's a wonderful thing that your kind of transcendental idealism disagrees with proven science so badly.

[Veritas Aequitas]

INDIRECT REALISM IS NOT TRANSCENDENTAL REALISM. Of course the "reality-gap" is included in indirect realism so we know that the Proxima Centauri out there has aged 4.2 years at the time of our perception, and may have exploded by now. But aging, change isn't the same as non-existence. I can't believe these things need to be explained and you think you have a gotcha here.

Also, not sure why you think it's a wonderful thing that your kind of transcendental idealism disagrees with proven science so badly.

Transcendental Realism and Indirect Realism are subsets of philosophical realism, i.e. believing in an absolutely mind-independent external world that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

It is very possible Proxima Centauri would have exploded by now, i.e. non-existent.
Rationally and scientifically, we are quite certain 99.9% there are stars we see [directly or via telescope] as 'real' at present which in real time are non-existent.
This prove indirect realism with respect to this example is chasing an illusion.

Even with 'aging' we are not seeing things as-they-really-are.
Note the case of the seed that sprouted overnight, then it is a seedling and a tree there after.
There is no 'that' thing-as-it-really-is which the indirect realists claim exist as-it-really-is.
What is most real is we are seeing things as-they-really-are changing.
It is the same with all things within the temporal [time] world.
Also time is a human construct and do not exists by itself independent of the human conditions.
Changes are contingent upon the human conditions.

So, there are no absolutely mind-independent things as-they-really-are, if indirect realists insist there are such things, they are chasing illusions and nonsense.

What is most realistic is there are relatively mind-independent things as-they-really-are contingent upon the human conditions.

[Atla]

INDIRECT REALISM IS NOT TRANSCENDENTAL REALISM. Of course the "reality-gap" is included in indirect realism so we know that the Proxima Centauri out there has aged 4.2 years at the time of our perception, and may have exploded by now. But aging, change isn't the same as non-existence. I can't believe these things need to be explained and you think you have a gotcha here.

Also, not sure why you think it's a wonderful thing that your kind of transcendental idealism disagrees with proven science so badly.

Transcendental Realism and Indirect Realism are subsets of philosophical realism, i.e. believing in an absolutely mind-independent external world that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

It is very possible Proxima Centauri would have exploded by now, i.e. non-existent.
Rationally and scientifically, we are quite certain 99.9% there are stars we see [directly or via telescope] as 'real' at present which in real time are non-existent.
This prove indirect realism with respect to this example is chasing an illusion.

Even with 'aging' we are not seeing things as-they-really-are.
Note the case of the seed that sprouted overnight, then it is a seedling and a tree there after.
There is no 'that' thing-as-it-really-is which the indirect realists claim exist as-it-really-is.
What is most real is we are seeing things as-they-really-are changing.
It is the same with all things within the temporal [time] world.
Also time is a human construct and do not exists by itself independent of the human conditions.
Changes are contingent upon the human conditions.

So, there are no absolutely mind-independent things as-they-really-are, if indirect realists insist there are such things, they are chasing illusions and nonsense.

What is most realistic is there are relatively mind-independent things as-they-really-are contingent upon the human conditions.

Don't be ridiculous, an exploded star's remains aren't "non-existent". And Kant said that time is a human construct, but Einsteinian spacetime isn't. Kant was wrong.

[seeds]

Here is one good example that show indirect realism is chasing an illusion.

Is the Star, Proxima Centauri [4.2 l.y.] Real?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40154

Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework. -WIKI

When a indirect realist sees the star, proxima centuari in the night sky, the implication is there is a real proxima centuari out there existing as it really is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

According to indirect realism, there is a proxima centuari as it really is which is not as perceived.
But we know the the star, proxima centuari in the night sky is not the proxima centuari as-it-really-is because what we are seeing are light that are 4.2 b l.y. old.

There is a possibility there is no proxima centuari as-it-really-is in the present real time [say t1] had imploded and does not exist at t1.
If that is the case, then indirect realists are chasing an illusion.

Gosh, I wonder what Kant would have to say about this Proxima Centauri issue?

To start with, I asked Bing Copilot (similar to ChatGPT) the following question...

What did Kant mean when he stated the following:

But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely that though we cannot know these objects as things-in-themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things-in-themselves: otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears.?

Copilot replied with the following...

In this statement, Immanuel Kant is discussing the concept of the “thing-in-itself” (German: Ding an sich). Let me break it down:

1. Thing-in-Itself (Noumenon): Kant believed that there exists a reality beyond our sensory experience, which he called the “thing-in-itself” or “noumenon.” These are objects as they truly are, independent of how we perceive them.

2. Phenomena: On the other hand, we encounter the world through our senses, and our knowledge is based on appearances or “phenomena.” These are the ways in which our senses are affected by the unknown something (the thing-in-itself).

3. Limitations of Knowledge: Kant acknowledges that we cannot directly know the thing-in-itself. Our understanding is limited to the appearances we perceive. However, he argues that we must still be able to think about these objects as things-in-themselves, even if we cannot fully grasp their true nature.

4. Absurd Conclusion: If we deny the possibility of thinking about things-in-themselves, we would be left with the absurd idea that there can be appearances (phenomena) without any underlying reality (thing-in-itself).

In summary, Kant emphasizes that while we cannot directly know the thing-in-itself, we can still recognize its existence and contemplate it conceptually. This distinction between phenomena and noumena is central to Kant’s philosophy.

I then asked Copilot this...

What would Kant have to say about the fact that when we look at Proxima Centauri, we are not seeing it as it really is in this present moment, but as an "appearance" of what it was 4.2 years ago?

Copilot replied with...

"Kant’s philosophy provides an interesting lens through which to view this cosmic phenomenon.

When we observe Proxima Centauri, we indeed perceive it as it appeared 4.2 years ago due to the finite speed of light. Here’s how Kant’s ideas might apply:

1. Phenomenal vs. Noumenal Perspective:

Phenomena: Our perception of Proxima Centauri is based on the light that reaches us today. This is the “appearance” or phenomenon.

Noumena: The true nature of Proxima Centauri—the “thing-in-itself”—exists independently of our perception. Kant would argue that we can only know the phenomenal aspect (the appearance) and not the noumenal reality.

2. Temporal Gap:

Kant would acknowledge the temporal gap between the light emitted by Proxima Centauri and its arrival at Earth. He’d emphasize that our knowledge is always mediated by time and space.

We cannot directly access the present state of Proxima Centauri; instead, we encounter its past state.

3. Conceptual Thinking:

Kant would insist that we can still think about Proxima Centauri conceptually as a noumenon—a distant star with its own existence beyond our perception.

While we lack direct knowledge of its present state, we can intellectually engage with the idea of its current reality.

4. Limits of Empirical Knowledge:

Kant’s philosophy recognizes the limits of empirical knowledge. We can’t transcend the temporal constraints of light travel.

Our understanding remains confined to phenomena, even when contemplating distant celestial objects.

In summary, Kant would appreciate the tension between appearance and reality in observing Proxima Centauri. While we can’t directly grasp its present state, our ability to think about it conceptually reflects our cognitive capacity to engage with noumena despite their inherent elusiveness."

The point is, sure, when we observe that 4.2-year-old image of Proxima Centauri, we are not seeing it "as it really is" at this present moment, but that does not mean that the source of that image (or whatever is left of it if it did indeed implode/explode) does not still exist.

(Note: As an example of how "iffy" these AI sources of information can be, I originally accidentally typed in 4.2 "billion" years, and it did not correct me, and simply repeated my mistaken number. So, I corrected it above. It doesn't change its reply concerning Kant, but geez, you'd think it would catch such a glaring mistake. )
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is one good example that show indirect realism is chasing an illusion.

Is the Star, Proxima Centauri [4.2 l.y.] Real?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40154

Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework. -WIKI

When a indirect realist sees the star, proxima centuari in the night sky, the implication is there is a real proxima centuari out there existing as it really is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

According to indirect realism, there is a proxima centuari as it really is which is not as perceived.
But we know the the star, proxima centuari in the night sky is not the proxima centuari as-it-really-is because what we are seeing are light that are 4.2 b l.y. old.

There is a possibility there is no proxima centuari as-it-really-is in the present real time [say t1] had imploded and does not exist at t1.
If that is the case, then indirect realists are chasing an illusion.

Gosh, I wonder what Kant would have to say about this Proxima Centauri issue?

To start with, I asked Bing Copilot (similar to ChatGPT) the following question...

What did Kant mean when he stated the following:

But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely that though we cannot know these objects as things-in-themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things-in-themselves: otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears.?

Copilot replied with the following...

In this statement, Immanuel Kant is discussing the concept of the “thing-in-itself” (German: Ding an sich). Let me break it down:

1. Thing-in-Itself (Noumenon): Kant believed that there exists a reality beyond our sensory experience, which he called the “thing-in-itself” or “noumenon.” These are objects as they truly are, independent of how we perceive them.

2. Phenomena: On the other hand, we encounter the world through our senses, and our knowledge is based on appearances or “phenomena.” These are the ways in which our senses are affected by the unknown something (the thing-in-itself).

3. Limitations of Knowledge: Kant acknowledges that we cannot directly know the thing-in-itself. Our understanding is limited to the appearances we perceive. However, he argues that we must still be able to think about these objects as things-in-themselves, even if we cannot fully grasp their true nature.

4. Absurd Conclusion: If we deny the possibility of thinking about things-in-themselves, we would be left with the absurd idea that there can be appearances (phenomena) without any underlying reality (thing-in-itself).

In summary, Kant emphasizes that while we cannot directly know the thing-in-itself, we can still recognize its existence and contemplate it conceptually. This distinction between phenomena and noumena is central to Kant’s philosophy.

I then asked Copilot this...

What would Kant have to say about the fact that when we look at Proxima Centauri, we are not seeing it as it really is in this present moment, but as an "appearance" of what it was 4.2 years ago?

Copilot replied with...

"Kant’s philosophy provides an interesting lens through which to view this cosmic phenomenon.

When we observe Proxima Centauri, we indeed perceive it as it appeared 4.2 years ago due to the finite speed of light. Here’s how Kant’s ideas might apply:

1. Phenomenal vs. Noumenal Perspective:

Phenomena: Our perception of Proxima Centauri is based on the light that reaches us today. This is the “appearance” or phenomenon.

Noumena: The true nature of Proxima Centauri—the “thing-in-itself”—exists independently of our perception. Kant would argue that we can only know the phenomenal aspect (the appearance) and not the noumenal reality.

2. Temporal Gap:

Kant would acknowledge the temporal gap between the light emitted by Proxima Centauri and its arrival at Earth. He’d emphasize that our knowledge is always mediated by time and space.

We cannot directly access the present state of Proxima Centauri; instead, we encounter its past state.

3. Conceptual Thinking:

Kant would insist that we can still think about Proxima Centauri conceptually as a noumenon—a distant star with its own existence beyond our perception.

While we lack direct knowledge of its present state, we can intellectually engage with the idea of its current reality.

4. Limits of Empirical Knowledge:

Kant’s philosophy recognizes the limits of empirical knowledge. We can’t transcend the temporal constraints of light travel.

Our understanding remains confined to phenomena, even when contemplating distant celestial objects.

In summary, Kant would appreciate the tension between appearance and reality in observing Proxima Centauri. While we can’t directly grasp its present state, our ability to think about it conceptually reflects our cognitive capacity to engage with noumena despite their inherent elusiveness."

The point is, sure, when we observe that 4.2-year-old image of Proxima Centauri, we are not seeing it "as it really is" at this present moment, but that does not mean that the source of that image (or whatever is left of it if it did indeed implode/explode) does not still exist.

(Note: As an example of how "iffy" these AI sources of information can be, I originally accidentally typed in 4.2 "billion" years, and it did not correct me, and simply repeated my mistaken number. So, I corrected it above. It doesn't change its reply concerning Kant, but geez, you'd think it would catch such a glaring mistake. )
_______

There are loads of nuances with Kant's CPR that most AI would not be familiar with because AI cohere from what is generally discussed within the majority who referenced Kant.

I have gone through with ChatGpt, i.e. when I provide the detailed references from the CPR, it would change its answers in alignment with the nuances highlighted.
It will be the same if I were to highligh to Copilot the same nuanced points.
I won't waste time with your post to embarrass your narrow view and that you are not thoroughly familiar with Kant's CPR.

Here is one clue:

But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely that though we cannot know these objects as things-in-themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things-in-themselves: otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears.?

The 'think' here is critical, i.e. 'think' means speculate base on classical logic but it does not implied it is confirmed as real.
In basic logic,
-for all creations, there must be a creator, but there is no real ultimate creator, e.g. a first cause.
-if there are gifts from Santa, there must be a real santa? a kid can 'think' of that.
-for all appearance, there must be that which appear, but no 'real' absolutely mind-independent thing that appear.

[seeds]

I won't waste time with your post to embarrass your narrow view and that you are not thoroughly familiar with Kant's CPR.

As Copilot so astutely deduced from the vast number of interpretations of what Kant meant in the quote I provided it...

1. Thing-in-Itself (Noumenon):
Kant believed that there exists a reality beyond our sensory experience, which he called the “thing-in-itself” or “noumenon.” These are objects as they truly are, independent of how we perceive them.

Anyway, little V, to borrow some words from the late Christopher Hitchens, if your mortician gives you an enema after you die, we'll be able to bury you in a match box.
_______

[Iwannaplato]

The point is, sure, when we observe that 4.2-year-old image of Proxima Centauri, we are not seeing it "as it really is" at this present moment, but that does not mean that the source of that image (or whatever is left of it if it did indeed implode/explode) does not still exist.

(Note: As an example of how "iffy" these AI sources of information can be, I originally accidentally typed in 4.2 "billion" years, and it did not correct me, and simply repeated my mistaken number. So, I corrected it above. It doesn't change its reply concerning Kant, but geez, you'd think it would catch such a glaring mistake. )
_______

Well, there's the whole fruit of the poison tree aspect to this argument. He's using a realist argument to undermine realism. What the hell does 'it may have exploded' refer to? in this 'might not be there now' argument that is trying to say nothing is there?

where? isn't he talking about what is actually there, via realism, to say it might not be what we think it is?

And it certainly holds for other minds.

[Veritas Aequitas]

2x

[Veritas Aequitas]

I won't waste time with your post to embarrass your narrow view and that you are not thoroughly familiar with Kant's CPR.

As Copilot so astutely deduced from the vast number of interpretations of what Kant meant in the quote I provided it...

1. Thing-in-Itself (Noumenon):
Kant believed that there exists a reality beyond our sensory experience, which he called the “thing-in-itself” or “noumenon.” These are objects as they truly are, independent of how we perceive them.

Despite my warning, you are still arrogant and adamant, thus exposing your ignorance.
If you discuss with AI as a 5 year old, it will give you 5-year-old answers. You need to understand Kant CPR thoroughly to discuss it reasonably.

After a long chat with Co-pilot where I supplied the relevant references from Kant's CPR, here is Co-pilot response:

Certainly! I appreciate your thoughtful analysis. Let’s rephrase that sentence to avoid ambiguity:

“While Kant acknowledges the concept of noumena, he emphasizes that our knowledge is limited to phenomena.”

This revision clarifies that Kant recognizes the existence of the noumenal realm as a conceptual construct, rather than asserting its objective reality.

I told you the noumenal exists at best as a thought only, never as anything substantial beyond the empirical.
If you have not read and understood [not necessary agree with] Kant thoroughly it is best you shut up to avoid embarrassing your intellectual integrity.

Anyway, little V, to borrow some words from the late Christopher Hitchens, if your mortician gives you an enema after you die, we'll be able to bury you in a match box.

Don't be so childish to trigger a tit-for-tat.
Showed you have ran out of rational ideas to discuss maturedly.

[Atla]

I admit that VA was right about one thing that I didn't initially believe: Kant really argued that the noumenal world beyond our direct experiences is 100% unknowable.

But that makes no fucking sense at all in any rational evaluation. It's a nonsensical, irrational, autistic solipsism.

I didn't believe it first because although I was never particularly impressed by Kant and never could figure out what the immense hype is about, still, surely so many people couldn't have been so stupid for so long, for centuries, to call Kant the greatest western philosopher since Plato, when actually he was just spouting childish bollocks. But guess I was wrong there.

[Atla]

I admit that VA was right about one thing that I didn't initially believe: Kant really argued that the noumenal world beyond our direct experiences is 100% unknowable.

But that makes no fucking sense at all in any rational evaluation. It's a nonsensical, irrational, autistic solipsism.

I didn't believe it first because although I was never particularly impressed by Kant and never could figure out what the immense hype is about, still, surely so many people couldn't have been so stupid for so long, for centuries, to call Kant the greatest western philosopher since Plato, when actually he was just spouting childish bollocks. But guess I was wrong there.

I can only speculate that 100-250 years ago autism was very rare and people had no idea about it, it was incomprehensible to them, and this gave Kant this huge mystical aura and people thought that he had this otherworldly insight into things when actually he didn't. He just smashed 18th century empiricism and rationalism together and created a really defective mixture.

[Iwannaplato]

Chatgpt: Metaphysical Anti-realism is Chasing an Illusion

Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so I asked Chatgpt 4 if Metaphysical Anti-realism
could be seen as chassing an illusion.

Here was the response...

Yes, one could also argue that metaphysical anti-realism is chasing an illusion. This argument can be approached from several philosophical perspectives:

1. **Ontological Commitment**: Metaphysical realists could argue that denying an independent reality does not make the world disappear. The persistence of the world independent of human perception and cognition suggests that there is an objective reality that exists whether we acknowledge it or not. From this perspective, anti-realism might be seen as an illusion because it ignores the apparent existence of an external world that persists despite individual perspectives and conceptual frameworks.

2. **Common Sense and Practical Engagement**: Many aspects of daily life and scientific practice assume a stable, mind-independent reality. For example, technological advancements and scientific discoveries often rely on the assumption that the world behaves consistently and predictably, independent of our perceptions. From this pragmatic standpoint, anti-realism might be considered illusory because it conflicts with the practical success and reliability of interacting with a presumed objective reality.

3. **Objective Truths**: Realists might argue that there are objective truths about the world that are discovered, not constructed. For instance, mathematical truths, physical laws, and historical facts are often seen as objective and mind-independent. If these truths are indeed objective, then anti-realism, which denies an independent reality, could be seen as illusory because it denies the existence of these objective facts.

4. **Scientific Realism**: The success of science in explaining, predicting, and controlling natural phenomena is often cited as evidence for the existence of an objective reality. Scientific realism argues that the best explanation for the success of science is that its theories approximate true descriptions of a mind-independent world. If this is correct, then anti-realism, which denies this, might be seen as chasing an illusion by undermining the explanatory power and success of scientific practice.

5. **Cognitive Relativism**: Anti-realism can lead to a form of cognitive relativism, where all truths are relative to particular frameworks or perspectives. Critics might argue that this leads to self-refutation or incoherence, as the claim that "all truths are relative" would itself be a relative truth, undermining its universality. From this angle, anti-realism could be seen as illusory because it leads to a contradictory or untenable position.

6. **Existential and Ethical Implications**: Some argue that a mind-independent reality is necessary for objective ethical values and existential meaning. If there is no independent reality, then ethical truths and existential meanings become purely subjective, potentially leading to nihilism or moral relativism. Realists might contend that anti-realism is illusory because it denies the grounding needed for objective ethical and existential claims.

In summary, one could argue that metaphysical anti-realism is chasing an illusion by emphasizing the persistent, practical engagement with an objective reality, acknowledging the success and explanatory power of science, and recognizing the need for objective truths in both ethical and existential contexts. These arguments suggest that denying an independent reality might overlook fundamental aspects of our experience and knowledge that imply the existence of an objective world.

[Atla]

I won't waste time with your post to embarrass your narrow view and that you are not thoroughly familiar with Kant's CPR.

As Copilot so astutely deduced from the vast number of interpretations of what Kant meant in the quote I provided it...

1. Thing-in-Itself (Noumenon):
Kant believed that there exists a reality beyond our sensory experience, which he called the “thing-in-itself” or “noumenon.” These are objects as they truly are, independent of how we perceive them.

Despite my warning, you are still arrogant and adamant, thus exposing your ignorance.
If you discuss with AI as a 5 year old, it will give you 5-year-old answers. You need to understand Kant CPR thoroughly to discuss it reasonably.

After a long chat with Co-pilot where I supplied the relevant references from Kant's CPR, here is Co-pilot response:

Certainly! I appreciate your thoughtful analysis. Let’s rephrase that sentence to avoid ambiguity:

“While Kant acknowledges the concept of noumena, he emphasizes that our knowledge is limited to phenomena.”

This revision clarifies that Kant recognizes the existence of the noumenal realm as a conceptual construct, rather than asserting its objective reality.

I told you the noumenal exists at best as a thought only, never as anything substantial beyond the empirical.
If you have not read and understood [not necessary agree with] Kant thoroughly it is best you shut up to avoid embarrassing your intellectual integrity.

Anyway, little V, to borrow some words from the late Christopher Hitchens, if your mortician gives you an enema after you die, we'll be able to bury you in a match box.

Don't be so childish to trigger a tit-for-tat.
Showed you have ran out of rational ideas to discuss maturedly.

You just don't get it do you. Kant said that we can only think the noumenon ("in here"), but that doesn't mean that the noumenon ("out there") can't exist. If it exists ("out there") then it is 100% unknowable therefore we can only think it ("in here"). Read again what Kant and the AI wrote.