ChatGpt: Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion

[Iwannaplato]

Pragmatism vs. Strong metaphysical anti-realism
- the latter is when, like VA, you take the stand that noumena do not exist.

Chatg4 on why Pragmatism is better than VA's position....

Pragmatism's advantage over a strong metaphysical anti-realist position lies in its practical approach to truth and belief, focusing on the utility of ideas and their consequences rather than their correspondence to an independent reality. Here are several reasons why pragmatism might be considered advantageous:

1. **Practical Success**: Pragmatism emphasizes what works in practice. It evaluates beliefs and theories based on their practical outcomes and usefulness rather than their metaphysical underpinnings. This practical focus allows for flexibility and adaptability in dealing with real-world problems, making it a more action-oriented and results-driven philosophy.

2. **Avoiding Metaphysical Debates**: Pragmatism sidesteps the contentious and often intractable debates about the existence of noumena (things-in-themselves) and whether we can access them. By "black-boxing" the issue, pragmatism avoids the pitfalls of metaphysical speculation and concentrates on what can be experienced and acted upon. This allows for a more straightforward and less contentious framework for decision-making and belief formation.

3. **Pluralism and Open-Ended Inquiry**: Pragmatism is inherently pluralistic, allowing for multiple perspectives and approaches to coexist. This openness encourages continuous inquiry and revision of beliefs based on their practical success and new experiences. Unlike strong metaphysical anti-realism, which might rigidly deny the possibility of an independent reality, pragmatism remains open to new ideas and evidence, fostering a more dynamic and evolving understanding of the world.

4. **Compatibility with Science**: Pragmatism aligns well with scientific practices, which prioritize predictive success, experimental verification, and practical application. Scientific theories are judged by their ability to explain and predict phenomena, not by their metaphysical commitments. This pragmatic approach allows for a fruitful collaboration between philosophical inquiry and scientific practice, facilitating progress and innovation.

5. **Mediating Extremes**: Pragmatism can mediate between the extremes of metaphysical realism and strong metaphysical anti-realism. It avoids the dogmatism of asserting a mind-independent reality while also steering clear of the potential nihilism or relativism of denying any independent reality. Instead, it focuses on the practical implications and outcomes of our beliefs, providing a balanced and moderate stance that can be more broadly acceptable and applicable.

6. **Ethical and Social Implications**: Pragmatism often emphasizes the ethical and social consequences of beliefs. By focusing on what works in practice, it encourages beliefs and actions that lead to positive social and ethical outcomes. This focus on practical consequences can lead to more responsible and constructive engagement with the world, compared to the potentially paralyzing skepticism or relativism of strong anti-realism.

7. **Human Experience and Agency**: Pragmatism acknowledges the central role of human experience and agency in shaping our understanding of the world. It recognizes that our interactions, practices, and interventions in the world are crucial for constructing meaning and knowledge. This emphasis on human experience makes pragmatism more relatable and actionable for individuals and communities.

In summary, pragmatism's advantage over strong metaphysical anti-realism lies in its focus on practical outcomes, its avoidance of intractable metaphysical debates, its openness to multiple perspectives, its alignment with scientific practices, its mediating stance between extremes, its ethical considerations, and its emphasis on human experience and agency. This practical and flexible approach allows for a more effective and meaningful engagement with the world.

[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.

Ok correction, neither of us understood this, now I do but VA still doesn't. But I was more mistaken initially than VA.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

Ok correction, neither of us understood this, now I do but VA still doesn't. But I was more mistaken initially than VA.

And despite Kant believing that noumena are unknowable, he considered the existence of, for example, the noumenon 'freedom' to be necessary for mroality. Without this noumenon, there is no morality. Kant clearly believed that morality was possible, so Kant can not have been on VA's strong metaphysical anti-realism team. This was not the only noumenon Kant considered critical that it existed.

[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.

Ok correction, neither of us understood this, now I do but VA still doesn't. But I was more mistaken initially than VA.

And despite Kant believing that noumena are unknowable, he considered the existence of, for example, the noumenon 'freedom' to be necessary for mroality. Without this noumenon, there is no morality. Kant clearly believed that morality was possible, so Kant can not have been on VA's strong metaphysical anti-realism team. This was not the only noumenon Kant considered critical that it existed.

Guess I'm lucky that I didn't look at Kant's other works, the CPR was already more than enough

[seeds]

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.

Precisely!
_______

[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.

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.

It is obvious that what you mean by: "...After a long chat with Co-pilot...," you were finally able to manipulate it into saying what you wanted to hear,...

...which, btw, is pretty much what it said to me. So, your "long chat" didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

I told you the noumenal exists at best as a thought only, never as anything substantial beyond the empirical.

How many times does this "5-year-old" have to demonstrate to you the existence of a "real" (scientifically verified) noumenon before it finally sinks in?

Again, for the umpteenth time, I have provided you with what I suggest is a clear example of a noumenon in the form of the noumenal (superpositioned/non-local) status of an electron as it momentarily resides in the interim space between the double-slitted wall and that of the phosphorescent screen of the Double Slit Experiment,...



...for what is taking place in that interim space is something that is objectively "real" yet can only be apprehended by way of the "intellect and intuition" and never by any sort of direct or empirical means.

It is the near perfect example of the existence of a noumenon which, according to Wiki,...

"...is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us..."

For obvious reasons, Kant had no clue of such things back in the 18th century, otherwise he might have made an exception to his insistence that the noumenon can only exist as a conceptual construct, rather than being objectively real.

If you continue to ignore the above example of a noumenal-like entity (again, the "non-local" status of an electron) that I keep providing you,...

...then you will be forever demonstrating your inability (more at closed-minded refusal) to metaphorically stand on Kant's shoulders in order to see beyond his (and your) limited take on reality.
_______

[Atla]

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

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.

It is obvious that what you mean by: "...After a long chat with Co-pilot...," you were finally able to manipulate it into saying what you wanted to hear,...

...which, btw, is pretty much what it said to me. So, your "long chat" didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

I told you the noumenal exists at best as a thought only, never as anything substantial beyond the empirical.

How many times does this "5-year-old" have to demonstrate to you the existence of a "real" (scientifically verified) noumenon before it finally sinks in?

Again, for the umpteenth time, I have provided you with what I suggest is a clear example of a noumenon in the form of the noumenal (superpositioned/non-local) status of an electron as it momentarily resides in the interim space between the double-slitted wall and that of the phosphorescent screen of the Double Slit Experiment,...



...for what is taking place in that interim space is something that is objectively "real" yet can only be apprehended by way of the "intellect and intuition" and never by any sort of direct or empirical means.

It is the near perfect example of the existence of a noumenon which, according to Wiki,...

"...is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us..."

For obvious reasons, Kant had no clue of such things back in the 18th century, otherwise he might have made an exception to his insistence that the noumenon can only exist as a conceptual construct, rather than being objectively real.

If you continue to ignore the above example of a noumenal-like entity (again, the "non-local" status of an electron) that I keep providing you,...

...then you will be forever demonstrating your inability (more at closed-minded refusal) to metaphorically stand on Kant's shoulders in order to see beyond his (and your) limited take on reality.
_______

Kant may say that the noumenon has nothing to do with QM. The double-slit experiment doesn't exist "out there", the wave pattern doesn't exist "out there", the particle pattern doesn't exist "out there", the scientist performing the experiment doesn't exist "out there", because the entire world doesn't exist "out there". Because there are only phenomena and even if there is anything out there, it is 100% unknowable.

So you just made up the world "out there" because it's umm.. advantageous to do so?

[Iwannaplato]

Precisely!
_______

Which points at one of realisms strengths: parsimony.

When we talk about a star out there, far away, that we cannot observe now, we are dealing with a noumenon.
Fine.
But if we say that the actual star is one that does not exist, how very odd that when it comes into view it has gone through the star stages: Protostar → Main Sequence Star → Red Giant/Supergiant → White Dwarf/Neutron Star/Black Hole (with possible nova or supernova events). And there are steps before it goes nova/supernova. It isn't really there, but as the light arrives, we see it follow the sequence. What is following the sequence?

This becomes more clear if we take a shorter distance and complete lack of viewing by humans.

We plant a bunch of seeds in pots in a room and seal up the room. The pots are all being watered by an automated system. Every time somene removes the seal and checks the plants they are going through the expected stages - unless there is disease. The seeds throw out root and a stem breaks the surface of the soil and so on.

So, we have this room following the same sequences of changes as a room where 6 people all take shifts staring at the plants. They are there to hold the plants in existence (so to speak). In the other room we get these little snippets of time where someone goes in and peeks. IN both rooms the plants go through what seems to be the same sequence.

In one room the plants are continuously looked at.
In the other now and then.

How odd that in each room the plants follow the same life cycle.

Realism posits plants that are not dependent on being viewed.
Antirealism (the VA hard version) says there are no plants 'there' when no one is in the room in Room 1.

Yet, for some reason it is as if all those unseen intermediary stages occured in Room 1.
I certainly don't rule this out. I don't know why it maintains this ghostly life cycle, but I could imagine an explanation.
But the parsimony of thinking that really the plants are there in both Room 1 and 2 the whole time regardless of whether they are being observed, is a nice elegant solution it really needs no explaining, then why the life cycle and changes are the same in both rooms.

this doesn't prove realism correct. I'm trying to point out what needs to be done by the metaphysical antirealist, strong version, and also that realism is elegant in its simplicity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

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.

You should read it again.

The above explained, the existence of the "noumenal-out-there" is conceptual construct.
It is the whole "noumenal-out-there" that is a conceptual construct.
Just like "Santa Claus from the Artic" exists a conceptual construct to all adults.

Copilot: "rather than asserting its objective reality"
One can only think of "noumenal-out-there" as a conceptual construct.
There is no real objective noumenal existing out there as an objective reality.
Analogy: No objective reality mean no objectively real Santa in real existence.

Many philosophers would use the term “objective reality” to refer to anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.). Common mid-sized physical objects presumably apply, as do persons having subjective states.
https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

As Kant had demonstrated, it is impossible for the conceptual construct 'noumenal-out-there' to be considered as an objective reality.
If is it not an objective reality, then in contrast it is something that is false and an illusion.

The most one can do is to consider the illusory noumenal as a useful illusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

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.

It is obvious that what you mean by: "...After a long chat with Co-pilot...," you were finally able to manipulate it into saying what you wanted to hear,...

...which, btw, is pretty much what it said to me. So, your "long chat" didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

I told you the noumenal exists at best as a thought only, never as anything substantial beyond the empirical.

How many times does this "5-year-old" have to demonstrate to you the existence of a "real" (scientifically verified) noumenon before it finally sinks in?

Again, for the umpteenth time, I have provided you with what I suggest is a clear example of a noumenon in the form of the noumenal (superpositioned/non-local) status of an electron as it momentarily resides in the interim space between the double-slitted wall and that of the phosphorescent screen of the Double Slit Experiment,...

...for what is taking place in that interim space is something that is objectively "real" yet can only be apprehended by way of the "intellect and intuition" and never by any sort of direct or empirical means.

It is the near perfect example of the existence of a noumenon which, according to Wiki,...

"...is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us..."

For obvious reasons, Kant had no clue of such things back in the 18th century, otherwise he might have made an exception to his insistence that the noumenon can only exist as a conceptual construct, rather than being objectively real.

If you continue to ignore the above example of a noumenal-like entity (again, the "non-local" status of an electron) that I keep providing you,...

...then you will be forever demonstrating your inability (more at closed-minded refusal) to metaphorically stand on Kant's shoulders in order to see beyond his (and your) limited take on reality.
_______

Read my response to Atla above in not understanding CoPilot's response.

[Atla]

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:


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.

You should read it again.

The above explained, the existence of the "noumenal-out-there" is conceptual construct.
It is the whole "noumenal-out-there" that is a conceptual construct.
Just like "Santa Claus from the Artic" exists a conceptual construct to all adults.

Copilot: "rather than asserting its objective reality"
One can only think of "noumenal-out-there" as a conceptual construct.
There is no real objective noumenal existing out there as an objective reality.
Analogy: No objective reality mean no objectively real Santa in real existence.

Many philosophers would use the term “objective reality” to refer to anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.). Common mid-sized physical objects presumably apply, as do persons having subjective states.
https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

As Kant had demonstrated, it is impossible for the conceptual construct 'noumenal-out-there' to be considered as an objective reality.
If is it not an objective reality, then in contrast it is something that is false and an illusion.

The most one can do is to consider the illusory noumenal as a useful illusion.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

This is a good example of a 5 year old chatting with AI and AI responding accordingly.

AI: "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."

The above is begging the question because it merely assume there is an an absolutely mind independent objective world without proofs and justifications, and basing on that mere assumption, claim "metaphysical anti-realism" is an illusion because it is "anti" its claim.

Besides "metaphysical anti-realism" is too loose a term that cover a wide range of beliefs that oppose metaphysical realism aka philosophical realism.

It is impossible to attribute scientific antirealism [Kantian] as chasing an illusion.
Scientific realism is justifying what is really real based on direct evidence from experience via the senses supported by critical thinking and rationality within a credible and objective framework and system.

On the other hand scientific realism in the above is begging the question.
Scientific realism starts with an assumption there is an objective reality [ontological] out there awaiting discovery.
In this case, scientific realism simply inferred from scientific evidence to justify what is merely an assumption in the first place.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You should read it again.

The above explained, the existence of the "noumenal-out-there" is conceptual construct.
It is the whole "noumenal-out-there" that is a conceptual construct.
Just like "Santa Claus from the Artic" exists a conceptual construct to all adults.

Copilot: "rather than asserting its objective reality"
One can only think of "noumenal-out-there" as a conceptual construct.
There is no real objective noumenal existing out there as an objective reality.
Analogy: No objective reality mean no objectively real Santa in real existence.

Many philosophers would use the term “objective reality” to refer to anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.). Common mid-sized physical objects presumably apply, as do persons having subjective states.
https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

As Kant had demonstrated, it is impossible for the conceptual construct 'noumenal-out-there' to be considered as an objective reality.
If is it not an objective reality, then in contrast it is something that is false and an illusion.

The most one can do is to consider the illusory noumenal as a useful illusion.

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.

This is so ignorant of Kantian philosophy. You have not read Kant's CPR thoroughly and you have the arrogance to insist upon the above?

The noumenal [aka thing-in-itself] is always associated with something that is "out there" absolutely independent of the human conditions, mind and body.
The noumenal and thing in itself in Kantian is attributed to the claims of philosophical realism's absolutely mind-independent thing.

Philosophical realism – .. is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder

Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind ..

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

[Atla]

You should read it again.

The above explained, the existence of the "noumenal-out-there" is conceptual construct.
It is the whole "noumenal-out-there" that is a conceptual construct.
Just like "Santa Claus from the Artic" exists a conceptual construct to all adults.

Copilot: "rather than asserting its objective reality"
One can only think of "noumenal-out-there" as a conceptual construct.
There is no real objective noumenal existing out there as an objective reality.
Analogy: No objective reality mean no objectively real Santa in real existence.



As Kant had demonstrated, it is impossible for the conceptual construct 'noumenal-out-there' to be considered as an objective reality.
If is it not an objective reality, then in contrast it is something that is false and an illusion.

The most one can do is to consider the illusory noumenal as a useful illusion.

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.

This is so ignorant of Kantian philosophy. You have not read Kant's CPR thoroughly and you have the arrogance to insist upon the above?

The noumenal [aka thing-in-itself] is always associated with something that is "out there" absolutely independent of the human conditions, mind and body.
The noumenal and thing in itself in Kantian is attributed to the claims of philosophical realism's absolutely mind-independent thing.

Philosophical realism – .. is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder

Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind ..

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Explain how our thoughts are "out there" and Kant claimed this?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

This is so ignorant of Kantian philosophy. You have not read Kant's CPR thoroughly and you have the arrogance to insist upon the above?

The noumenal [aka thing-in-itself] is always associated with something that is "out there" absolutely independent of the human conditions, mind and body.
The noumenal and thing in itself in Kantian is attributed to the claims of philosophical realism's absolutely mind-independent thing.

Philosophical realism – .. is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder

Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind ..

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Explain how our thoughts are "out there" and Kant claimed this?

You are very lost.
You are asking a very silly question and insulting your own intelligence.
How can thoughts be ever be outside the brain and mind of the thinker?

Analogy:
One can think [in one's brain] there is a God 'out there'.
You are thinking [with and in your brain] there is the noumenon "out there" which is absolutely independent from your brain.