₦airaland Forum

ElevationD:
Whether na lawyer, whether na therapist, the moment you break up your relationship, what your ex does with his/her love emotions, e no concern you again.

True but surely, a client must feel very "some how" when her lawyer who is her confidante and agent does that within two weeks. It of course infers that the lawyer was already "sleeping with the enemy."

And some ethical issues can be inferred with that.

Kukutente23:
In all these, what I get as underlying all these is a disgust at Awolowo for helping Nigeria win the war. I bet if Awolowo had chosen sides with Biafra and given any idea, none of you will blink for a moment as to the proprietary or otherwise of the idea. You'll probably hail him a hero!

Please do not descend to the level of those who presume where one comes from simply on account of one's advocacy for or against a political matter. This here looks just like that and is mildly dissapointing. I am neither Igbo nor Yoruba - and I do not support the idea of Biafra.

Kukutente23:
Referring you to the bible is a case of drawing out lessons not appealing to its humanity.

Let me also say that Francis Adewale is entitled to his opinion. Who is going to apologize to Banjo's family who was killed by Ojuku on flimsy grounds?

For the issue of Nazi Germany, they were subjected to such humiliation because they were the losing party. It is trite law that laws and legislation are not supposed to or reactive except in certain unusual circumstances. The Nazi example is further proof of what I'm pointing out about wars. Nazis were prosecuted with a reactive law while the US that nuclear bombed two cities were hailed as heroes that saved the world. USSR that lost more to the war and sustained the war for long periods was relegated to the background. Nothing is fair and straight in all these examples.

I just saw this. However you yourself have made an exception with the bold.

Kukutente23:
You don't get to decide what constitutes torture Mr Man. Torture is well defined by the same articles you've been posting. I've posted it here for you to read.

Secondly, I'm happy you asked yourself why aid planes flew at night. That was all on Ojuku who refused aid planes to fly in the day claiming they will be used to spy on and even poison Biafra citizens. These are his words from your Wikipedia page.

Let me avert your mind to article 15 that says both parties must agree to aids moving across and to the time and place such will occur, in other words demilitarised zones. Ojuku in effect refused demilitarised zones!! Who is the murderer now? That's why I asked you to show me an aid plane shot down. A plane flying at night over war territory is basically looking for trouble. That's what Ojuku invited. Even the man who read interviewed alluded to same thing.

As I already pointed out to you, starvation was not prohibited then as a weapon of war and even if it was, the blockade was not starvation. Ojuku had a responsibility to ensure self-sufficiency before starting a war. In the midst of the blockade, he was still getting arm supplies to prosecute his selfish war but wouldn't leave space for aid. Refer back to my quote from Plato.

Appealing to sentiments is always a valid weapon by a losing party. The Palestinians who started a war are doing same now. But war is a struggle for survival or expansion not a moral expedition. The same West who came up with all these Conventions don't even obey it. George Bush and Tony Blair are still going about as if nothing happened in Iraq. ICC just got sanctioned by the US Congress for declaring Netanyahu wanted.

In all these, what I get as underlying all these is a disgust at Awolowo for helping Nigeria win the war. I bet if Awolowo had chosen sides with Biafra and given any idea, none of you will blink for a moment as to the proprietary or otherwise of the idea. You'll probably hail him a hero! Meanwhile, the two characters who are most at fault for the war are Gowon and Ojuku. Both were egotistical maniacs who elevated personal nuances into territorial fisticuffs. Ojuku, an otherwise brilliant and educated soldier, probably the most educated then should have averted his mind to Plato's words. Biafra had no diplomatic mileage or internal strength to survive a war with a well established entity like Nigeria. There was no chance of victory yet he went headlong into it. Gowon should have stuck with the Aburi accord. He had no business trashing it for provincial interests. If I had my way, both men should have been court martialled, tried and shot for destabilising Nigeria and causing the avoidable deaths of millions. It is a settled stand that the war was needless!!

You know, as much as I disagree with you, I enjoy reading from you. I like the way you try to marshall your points coherently.

Its Saturday morning and I am quaffing a beer alongside Potatoes and chicken, so I will come back to you in greater detail. But for now, please address my question as to crimes against humanity being inferred against Nazi Germany when no such crime had even been defined yet, talk more of made into a treaty. Does that not speak to the fact that as I have argued, certain crimes are beyond any treaty or written word.

PS: Kukutente - please dont refer me to the bible in this discussion. I dont subscribe to any religion and as far as I know the old testament is full of barbarities and aboniminations.

Kukutente23:
1. I have produced article 15 for you. Show me where it prohibits starvation.

The generality of that Article, but the whole of the spirit of the Geneva Conventions speak to the point. However, specifically, the Fourth Convention speaks against torture, brutality of any kind and acts towards the extermination of a population. See the attached.

Are you really going to be be technical and pedantic enough to proceed to quibble as to whether or not stavation is a form of torture - and whether the starvation of a population is not an act towards the extermination of a population? Or whether that does not constitute a "collective punishment?" - Article 33 of the 4th Convention specifically prohibits collective punishment.

I beg you to try to spare me that, because you have already shocked me, and still shock me more, with your adoption of a technical defense of something which I have described as too vicious, visceral and primal (hunger) to be defended with technicalities. That in itself is unconscionable.

2. The Geneva Act of 1960 did not ratify the full body of the Geneva Convention. It only ratified the aspects for prisoners of war, protection of rights and the red cross. It was the 1988 ratification that covered starvation and some other like I already told you.

The Act provides for punishment for persons breaching the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/national-practice/geneva-conventions-act-1960

And yet again, I repeat: why resort to this sort of technical defense of something so vicious, visceral and primal - such as starvation as a weapon of war?

3. I am not aware of Nigeria shooting down aid planes. Kindly avail me of such examples. And I hope you'll know what an aid plane is. A plane with the enemy's emblem or call sign can't be an aid plane. What Nigeria basically did and is publicly documented was to enforce a blockade against Biafra. Nothing was destroyed. Instead, it was Ojuku who destroyed Niger Bridge. I challenge you to disprove this.

This is too notorious a fact for you to demand proof of - and at this stage I begin to suspect you are being deliberately mendacious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Biafra

- - - > Note in the above link that relief stopped when the FG shot down a Swedish relief plane.

Furthermore -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biafran_airlift

https://biafranwarmemories.com/2020/01/10/nigerian-migs-were-trying-to-shoot-us-down/

But the foregoing aside, I would inquire how else a blockade can be enforced if not by shooting down any such planes? Why did such planes have to come in at night and land without lights?

Not only planes, but farms wetre bombed.

4. A war is not a tea party. It is a known fact that all is fair in love and war. It was Plato who said a well- founded and healthy city must be prepared for war. In other words, war is a means of survival of the state. If Biafra as a state was not confident of its survival but went headlong into war with a state it largely depended on, then it has no one but itself to blame. Go back and read the story of Joab I referenced earlier. When the women of the city realised they can't survive the siege, they gave Joab what he wanted and the siege ceased. That's common sense. Putting your survival in your own hands and not expecting good behaviour from an enemy you're at war with. So, if you're thinking of humanity, know that a war situation is not one to appeal to humanity no matter the Conventions and rules in place.

War, especially in the modern age, has protocols. Barbarity is frowned upon - since the second world war, lessons have been learnt and that is precisely why we have such things as "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes." Here, you would appear to implicitly suggest that no such things exist because "[wars are] not a tea party" . . . Wars are not a tea party indeed, but the fact is that humans have evolved to the stage where they acknowledge certain acts in war to be war crimes. This is the fact. And starvation as a weapon is one.

As I said, this remains the case, treaty or no treaty, and you didnt discuss this point at all. I pointed out to you that the Nazis were convicted of crimes against humanity even when no such thing was defined at the time. Neither was Germany a signtory to a treaty that didnt even exist at the time. This reinforces my point that you are being pedantic - and on a sensitive matter of humanity too. Because this underscores what I said that crimes against humanity transcend the written word. No treaty is required for anyone in the modern age to recognize the barbarity and inhumanity and thus criminality of certain acts even during a war. This is not 10000 BC. We are talking about the 20th century, and we are talking in the 21st century.

You may also wish to have a look at this article -

https://usafricaonline.com/2012/10/10/awolowos-starvation-policy-against-biafrans-and-the-igbo-requires-apology-not-attacks-on-achebe-by-francis-adewale/

cc: Rikkely

StraightGaay:
Israel shouldn't be distracted, they're doing the lords work, doing away with terrorism and restoring worlds peace.

Peace can never be sustained without justice.

Kukutente23:
1. Update yourself. Starvation as a war crime was adopted in 1977 not 1948 and even countries like the US still disagree with that particular adoption. Starvation was not in the original articles of the Geneva conventions.
2. The exact wordings are very vague. Though it is clear that starvation is not allowed by the 1977 protocol, what the FG did wouldn't amount to such just as what Israel is doing now will not as well because the protocol says one shouldn't remove, attack or destroy objects important for survival. In the case of Biafra, you'll have to prove that FG destroyed anything. What they put up was simply a siege which led to starvation since most of East couldn't farm and ensure their own supplies. Putting up a siege is not against the Convention and that was my earlier point. As a matter of fact, it is Ojukwu that will look like a war criminal since he destroyed the main bridge linking the east with the rest of the country this cutting off that means of supplies.
3. Nigeria signed up to Geneva Convention in 1988 so those laws did not apply to Nigeria during the civil war. Also Nigeria signed up to ICC in the early 2000s. So as you can see, you can't hold Awo for committing any war crime as far as all the above are concerned. Instead, as I pointed out in my comment that you misinterpreted, hold Ojuku who failed to surrender when under siege and left his people to starve only to run away when his well- being was threatened. Dude knows how to run but does not know how to save others.

Since your central argument is that starvation was not made a war crime until 1977, I respond as follows -

1. The 4th Geneva Convention, formally known as the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, was adopted on August 12, 1949. It made it clear that starvation of civilian populations was not permissible. See Part II, Article 15 as well. It came into effect in October 1950.

2. Nigeria signed the Geneva Conventions Act in 1960 - incorporating the provisions of the Geneva Conventions as law.

3. Aside from the foregoing, I am taken aback that you would seek to defend starvation on such weak grounds. Your first ground, which was the date and timing, has been dismanled in 1 & 2 above. So you are waffling. Your second ground is a sickening and pedantic play on words - saying that the requirement is not to "remove, destroy or attack objects important to survival." Needless to say, the blockade was enforced by attacking and shooting down aid planes - so again, this weak defense falls flat on its face. An aid plane is an "object important to survival." So is a farm - and the FG bombed farms. The extract you attached specifically mentioned attacking agriculture.

But its not just the fact that you technically fail here that is disturbing. It is the fact that you could even attempt to use such a technicality against something as vicious, visceral and primal as hunger. That is where I would begin to question your humanity.

4. In the modern age, do you require a treaty to know what a crime against humanity is? I hope you know that no such thing as "crimes against humanity" had been defined when the Nazis were committing the holocaust, and yet the Nuremberg Trials went on to define those crimes and convicted Nazis of same. This simply shows that in the modern mileu you cannot hide behind either a a law against crimes against humanity not being enacted yet or your failure to sign on to any relevant treaty. Crimes against humanity transcend the written word. And again, this is where you shock me. Your failure to instinctively recognize that, treaty or no treaty.

cc: Rikkely

Kukutente23:
engrchykae thinks Awo is a cross carpeter who is not stable. You think it's OK for politicians to align. Which narrative should we go with?

As for using hunger as a weapon, even Napoleon did. So did Alexander the Great. Its called creating a siege against the enemy. Even the Israelites whom you claim to share ancestry with did same in the bible. Read the story of the fall ofJericho and Joab the chief of David's army and his pursuit of Sheba. Also read the siege against Judah by the Amalekites. Same also happened between East Germany and west Germany.

Even Israel is starving Palestininans now and y'all hail them. My point is the starvation you're whining about like little birches is a valid weapon of warfare. If you who are engaged in war can't man your territory to ensure supply, don't come and start looking for pity.

The right thing to do in such situation is to surrender once you've been trapped from all sides. Stop blaming Awolowo for your war leader's foolishness.

Ask yourself why he now ran away when the sound of defeat was getting close to him. He didn't want to die but he allowed others die. What a wicked, heartless soul!!

Starvation as a weapon of war - is a war crime - especially when deployed against civilian populations. This is a fact under the Geneva Convention 1948 - to which Nigeria was a signatory at the time. Obafemi Awolowo openly admitted deploying starvation as a weapon. This makes him a certified war criminal.

It is ridiculous for you to cite Napoleon, Alexander, Nazi Germany or the Bible as justifications. Abominations committed in history do not justify abominations. And just in case you think the Bible is a trump card, it is not. It is a book full of unmentionable atrocities.

To call starvation a "legitimate weapon of war" - is beyond sickening.

Thankfully - that is nothing more than your opinion, because as I have said - only three facts count here -

1. It is a war crime under the Geneva Convention ( - See [Protocol I, Article 54)
2. Nigeria was a signtory to the Geneva Convention
3. Awolowo admitted to it - and to being the author of the policy.

He was thus a war criminal regardless of your repugnant and shameful opinion.

cc: Rikkely

TenQ:
You have a strong point here.

Self-consciousness is possible in robots if and only if some factors are imputed in such robots
1. Reception of Pain and Pleasure
2. Perception of the Environment
3. Will for self Preservation
4. Choice making

Are these possible with the technology at hand?
Not even remotely!

When you add on the capacity for conscience, morality and ethical values (which your No. 4 lightly hints at), the entire suggestion that machines can be self conscious in the way that humans are collapses like the ridiculous joke that it always was from the onset.

budaatum:
DeepSight, just by posting on here one makes some of oneself visible to those looking and to oneself, if one is looking at oneself.

Great opportunity to reflect on oneself and learn and evolve, is what God Seun has provided for us here.

You have always been invisible. You only wear a visible mask.

budaatum:
I've learnt some want to split themselves and others into separate components instead of seeing the whole person, and that I should focus on the persons I see before me instead of their souls that I most definitely see not.

We are all invisible.

TenQ:
You may need to define what you mean by absurdity?

A red circle is sensible and possible
BUT
A square circle is an absurdity

So what I mean is with respect to robots, machine intelligence, AI - and the contention by some that it is conceivable for a machine to attain self-consciousness. I pointed out previously that humans are very complex beings who are even capable of absurdity - and by this I mean self contradiction, self negation and even self destruction. This is aside from all manner of absurd and even inexplicable patterns of behavior. My view and understanding is that they are capable of this because of the fact that they possess what I would call living-root-consciousness - in other words they are conscious beings at their core and so for instance can make one decision one moment and flip that decision on a hunch, impulse, intuition or "weird" feeling of any kind the very next instant. They can love and hate someone else at the same time. They can proceed on lines of action clearly detrimental to their own well being. They can sacrifice themselves for others or for a cause. They are capable of altruism and they can commit suicide. They are thus capable of a spectacular spectrum of varied absurdities.

The question is whether a machine could conceivably be capable of the like of such. Because it appears to me that being preprogrammed, nothing it does could be absurd in this sense. Even if it is programmed to self destruct, that is not absurd because that was what was intended in its program. By definition, it thus lacks the capacity to be absurd - and closely allied to this question is what I said about impulse and intuition and the like. There is quite enough in my view to shoot down the idea that machines can be self-conscious, and it's sadly disappointing to see the escapist responses delivered in this thread in that regard.

budaatum:
Like a proxy?

Imagine I could possibly be looking at the soul of DeepSight when I am obviously completely blind to seeing the physical DeepSight that you present before me.

Now imagine me telling you to believe what I saw about the soul of the deepsight that is the proxy I see instead of you.

By the prophet's beard!

killyaselfie:
You should have saved this nonsense and instead explain the “reality beyond the physical”. You defend nonsense because your ideas are nonsense. When called to explain, like the jackass you defend, you ask a thousand questions and refuse to explain.
Don’t worry about who I call jackass.

No worries amigo. I wish you well.

budaatum:
Nor does my soul feel my emotions for me. I feel my emotions myself!

Maybe "soul" is another word for "you."
Or "I" . . . or "me."

As TenQ has been suggesting.

killyaselfie:
Lol. What a jackass.

Of all the attributes which either scripture or conventional moral wisdom may recommend to a person, humility is one of the most underrated and yet, one of the most useful precepts in any kind of social interaction. While I am not a religious person and have not been throughout my adult life, I have come to understand that the scorn and disdain which many atheists or irreligious people reserve for the religious is something that the wise ones among them tend to do away with. This is for several reasons, but those which concern me here are -

(1) sitting on a grain of sand on a beach (to use your own words - an analogy I have oft used myself) we know so little about the universe in which we live (which itself may just be another grain of sand on a vaster beach and so on) - not to speak about reality as a whole. This alone should compel sufficient humility in all of us such that we restrain our more bombastic and arrogant tendencies with respect to the market place of ideas. I say this as someone who has spent many years myself pouring massive scorn on religious people so do not think I am waxing sanctimonious or holier-than-thou here.

(2) Many times, as I hinted earlier, the scientific community itself has become so rigid and dogmatic in its approach to things, that it is not uncommon to find scientists spewing grievous nonsensicalities in a bid to destroy any conceivable notion of spirituality or the existence of a higher power or intelligence out there which may have anything to do with our existence on this planet. This is in itself ridiculous when one remembers that we sit on a grain of sand on a beach, but the sheer extreme dogmatism and vitriol deployed by the supposedly scientifically minded to destroy any idea related to the possibility of anything spiritual or even the idea that there could have been any consciousness behind the world as we know it, is too extreme in itself and thus anti-scientific. In this you find such people ready to make every manner of illogical pronouncement and most strangely - in doing this, because "science" is the the orthodoxy of the day, they peer down their noses arrogantly and smugly pitying everyone else who they consider ignorant and deluded.

I have written this specially for you sir, because I can only smile when I read you describing someone else as "a jackass" up there, after you have, on this same thread, insisted that thoughts are matter, that they have mass and occupy space, and that evidence of this is that if you write a thought down on a sheet of paper, voila, that's a thought with mass and occupying space. I dont know with what words this sort of insistence on denial of the obvious may be described, but I can only tell you that once I recognized the length you were prepared to go to, I had no choice but to quietly withdraw because it is something I am all too familiar with. What you presented has no words by which it may be described, but believe me, there is nothing new under the sun.

I therefore simply wish to recommend to you a little humility. I dont think that gentleman you called a jackass has been rude to you even if you both disagree.

budaatum:
I have not read your responses to others, but I do expect the scientists amongst them to disagree with you a lot on souls.

I am not sure to what extent the question of souls is a matter of science at the physical level, at least not the science of today.

TenQ:
My argument to him was that an activity no hurting others does not make it moral and okay!
Imagine of Buhari should decide to exercise his freedom of expression by appearing in the public with nothing other than a bowtie, pants and shoe.

Ol boy that will hurt others big time!

TenQ:
On nudity: I believe you understand that nudity is not offensive indoors. It only becomes offensive in public. BUT it hurts nobody; does it?

Except those who claim the the human body to be some sort of abominable spectre: especially Allahu Akbar people dem.

Robot Achieves Self-Awareness, Is Quickly Turned Off and ‘Dies’
German researchers watched in horror as a true artificial intelligence emerged, only to be turned off by a human tester.

https://www.roboticsbusinessreview.com/rbr/robot_achieves_self_awareness_is_quickly_turned_off_and_dies/

killyaselfie:
I guess it's in the same sense that geocentrism is correct.

Not at all, but no matter.
G'nite.

killyaselfie:
There is nothing weird about what I am saying until you show how thoughts are independent of material things. There is nothing anti-scientific about matter generating thought. Neurons, chemical signals, electrical signals products of matter or matter themselves.

Save that this is not the question and you have already answered the question by affirming that you believe that thoughts are matter, and that they have mass and occupy space, for example, on paper.

Still, stop trying to disprove the fact that thoughts are matter (as in material) and explain how thoughts are examples of the immaterial which is the bone of contention. You are the one who is supposed to have proven this in a few short sentences!!



Yes, thought are matter. You can figure out the state if you want.
https://southsidemedical.net/how-brain-chemistry-affects-mental-health/
Which Chemicals are Involved with Brain Chemistry and Mental Health?
Happiness, sadness, excitement, euphoria, and even fear are emotions that are triggered and maintained by chemicals in the brain known as neurotransmitters. Neurotransmitters are the brain’s way of communicating with the body’s nerve cells. When there isn’t enough or there is too much of one kind of neurotransmitter present, it can lead to what are called ‘bad nerves’.

The chief neurotransmitters produced by the brain are:

Dopamine
Dopamine is the chemical in the brain that is associated with the pleasure and reward centers of the brain. High amounts of dopamine lead to feelings of pleasure or euphoria.
Serotonin
Serotonin is the chemical associated with rest and sleep. However, it’s also associated with your moods, sexual arousal and even hunger.
Glutamate
Glutamate is associated with learning, memory and feelings of excitement.
Norepinephrine
Norepinephrine acts as both a neurotransmitter as well as a hormone. Norepinephrine is a stress-responsive chemical that creates the “fight or flight” response when we are feeling stressed out. Low levels of it can cause ADHD and depression.

Unlike electricity, the brain's chemical messengers, the neurotransmitters, are difficult to identify from first observations. The action of electricity could be confirmed or disproved by home-style tests; but the activity and nature of a chemical compound that may be involved in the brain's signaling system demand more rigorous examination. The compound must meet a half dozen specific criteria to be considered a neurotransmitter—as opposed to, say, a "second messenger" in the brain, which broadcasts signals within a cell rather than conveying a signal from one cell to another. (Distinctions such as this, which may seem overly fine at first, have a way of turning out later to be crucial for understanding new, otherwise inexplicable data.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234149/
To be recognized as a neurotransmitter, a chemical compound must satisfy six conditions: It must be (1) synthesized in the neuron, (2) stored there, and (3) released in sufficient quantity to bring about some physical effect; (4) when administered experimentally, the compound must demonstrate the same effect that it brings about in living tissue; and (5) there must be receptor sites specific to this compound on the postsynaptic membrane, as well as (6) a means for shutting off its effect, either by causing its swift decomposition or by reuptake, absorbing it back into the cell. Of course, before any of these items on the checklist come into question, the compound must somehow be detectable in the human brain—not always an easy matter, in view of the minute quantities involved.

Well I think its obvious we cant make any further progress on this. I also believe any independent observer can arrive at his/ her own conclusions regarding our little exchange. Thanks for your time.

TenQ:
I hope Diridiri know that self learning is a product of instructions, data and training of the computer to take future decisions based on previous data?

I hope so too because he already sounded as though he was smugly scoffing on this point.

asanausana91:
God bless Buhari.
During PDP this money would have being shared among thieves.
How many aircraft did PDP buy for their 16 years of corruption.
In Only 8 years Buhari bought More than 60 aircrafts, while PDP with16years bought nothing.
The worst thing that ever happened to this country is allowing PDP to rule this country for 16 years.

Confess that you are laboring under a curse.

Itohanmiwa:
All hail President Buhari. Mehn this man doesn't make noise, he just takes people unaware. It's one sign a very disciplined individual. Because with all the negative comments being said about him he has still refused granting interviews to waste his precious time. Instead baba is busy achieving. My mind changed after I experienced the over enhanced quality and comfort of Nigerian railway corporation. I'm sure we will all appreciate this man better once he leaves office. Well except you don't reason tho.

Are you cursed.

killyaselfie:
Or it could be that they really thought the seat of intelligence is the heart and it only became “a flavor or nuance of language” when shown otherwise. Given how the heart races and how the muscles in the chest cavity contracts when people are anxious, or fearful, or in love, it’s not far fetched to take them verbatim when they spoke about the heart.

Even at that, there is a sense in which that is still correct.

killyaselfie:
No it isn’t false. Thoughts depend on/are material and you can find the properties of said matter if you want to. Thoughts do take up space, whether as chemical composition/ arrangements in the brain or when transferred to another medium such as paper.

This is truly weird: I am not sure you can validly sustain the idea that thoughts take up space by conflating a thought with either its written representation on paper or the chemical reactions ancillary to it. I would urge you to be careful because it seems to me that you are willing to venture into very illogical and also anti-scientific territory in the pursuit of your determination to exclude the existence of the immaterial.

Please, show how thoughts are immaterial without reference to anything material.

This is not the question. Please do not avoid it. I said, are thoughts matter, even if produced by matter. And you said yes. I went on to ask what type of matter, solid, liquid or gases, and if they have mass and occupy space. Now you are venturing to push the envelope by saying that they do?

killyaselfie:
keep in mind that the heart was once thought to be the seat of intelligence and that’s why they wrote, “the heart of man is wicked”.

This could be considered merely the flavor and nuance of language. I dont think anyone doubts that what is meant there is simply the "inner mind" and its still used in that context even today.

PS: It is not just wicked but "desperately" wicked.

killyaselfie:
Thoughts are products of matter and yes, they are matter because it’s the exchange of chemicals (matter) between neurons(matter) that give rise to thoughts.

I am not sure that this is a known definition of matter. Does a thought have weight or occupy space. What kind of matter is it - solid, liquid or gaseous?

As far as I know, this is the definition of matter:

Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. It can be in the form of solids, liquids, or gases.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/physical-property-of-matter-definition-examples-quiz.html

No one is trying to goad you into anything that is not already obvious. You can't succeed with your claim that thoughts are matter. That is simply scientifically false.

killyaselfie:
Thoughts exists as functions of matter.

Not disputing that at this moment amigo. Yet it seems that you are unwilling to address the question as to if thoughts are matter. So are thoughts matter or not? For the purpose of this question, let us assume that we agree already that thoughts are functions of matter. Are they therefore matter?

ednut1:
and Nato will arm Ukraine. Usa and allies can invade libya, afghanistan and syria . It was fine then. Russia has a right to protect itself

The West are always like - "We can do it, its okay, but if you try it, there's a problem!"