₦airaland Forum

SultanOfPuna:
Yoruba parents are so weak and lazy to train their kids.
The amount of hundreds of thousands of yoruba kids that are agberos is on another level.

Yorubas value agberos to the point they want to make Mc Olumo an Oba

Dont get me wrong, every state get agbero
But Lagos is where 7 out of 10 boys are agberos.

This shows that Yorubas cant train and rule their kids, and they want to rule a whole nation.

If Yorubas cant control and discipline their own children, their own blood.
Then imagine how a Yoruba president will control bandits and terrorist from far away north. Its truely sad

bros don't start this nonsense today
before the agbero people start with their own igbo talk na

madridsta007:
Your statement here is just a bunch of contradictions. I'll bring out some key ones.

1. God is not "irrational". This isnt true as you are trying to define God by man's definition of rationality which is impossible. That is why He is God. He will do "irrational" things like consuming Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and hailstones. He will do "irrational" things like watching Stephen get beheaded instead of preserving his life and using him to preach the gospel. He will do "irrational" things like sending His son Jesus to die and turn his face away while he is being whipped and crucified when He can easily stop it.

I can go on and on. You cant limit God into the human constructs of rationality and irrationality, my friend. That is why he is God. You realise that miracles are actually, "irrational"?

2. You wrote, "this is not a miracle by God", which suggests that you believe God can do miracles. However, you also say, "Bible is fortified with fetish things." Do you also believe in fetish things?

3. Do you realise that this sort of miracles has happened before? A few times actually. In the US it also happened: https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/january/the-bible-did-not-burn-mans-bible-untouched-by-fire-that-destroyed-home

Is it that this American man also used this same fetish power? Is the American man from Edo State?
And even another similar miracle that didnt burn a SINGLE Bible:
https://abc7ny.com/fire-church-bibles-miracle/5169060/

Does it mean that all the Bibles in this church were sent to Nigeria, for fetish fortification, before being distributed in the States? Is that how the Supply Chain of Bible Production works?

You see how silly you now sound?

Should I go on?
Miracles exist (and you seem to agree that it does). Disproving them is an exhausting exercise. I can feel your exhaustion from here.

1. Do you know what irrational is? Something that doesn't conform to rationality is by definition irrational. Technically, if God existed, miracles would be perfectly rational, since they could be easily explained by God having done them.

3. I'm sure all of those cases were miracles, just like the miracle of the clouds saying "Allah" and crosses appearing everywhere. Also, it's surprisingly difficult to burn a single closed book completely. Try it by yourself at home. It has to be hard back too, like Bibles often are.

Miracles don't exist. Most "miracles" that have been recorded in the current age have perfectly rational explanations, and the ones that are bizarre are just cock and bull stories that someone wrote up and have no evidence of ever even occurring, like Noah's flood or the raising of the dead after Jesus' death. Keep being delusional though, ya?

IMASTEX:
Africans. Even the word of God said that "His word is spirit & life" not a translated book, that if burnt has millions of the same exact copy.

This one no be African-exclusive iberibe...
Is it not this same thing that oyibo people were saying that time that Notre Dame was burning and the iron cross didn't burn?

jaybenugo:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CZwUt0ZLwBP/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Lalasticlala
Mynd44

so people he no go save save is now bible wey dey fill bookstore that he go save
abeg christ-mumus make una calm down make una no kill person biko

Obeyp:
Hello guys. So my girlfriend made this post for her friend. Have warned her about her closeness with this guy she should have limit that am not comfortable. Today she posted this on his birthday.

"See who's 20 happy birthday to one of the most amazing, talented se annoying sweet, caring person I know you know good people are hard to come by right?? Imagine having laughter, peace of mind, intelligence "good accent" na that one the burst my brain see.

"You have come through for me in ways i can't imagine and even explain and your genuine love and pure intentions you have with me it's everything for me thank you loving me the way you do. and always giving me a listening ear when i need someone to talk to how you take my burdens and problems like yours is what's really amaze me and also how you treat people's emotions it's just so pure thank you dear friend happy birthday my love wishing you the best year yet full with prosperity abundant blessings happiness � happy birthday babe have a blast and you know i love youuuuuu "

If you were in my shoes how will you feel.

Modified* I went and collected the iPhone I bought for her recently. I ended the relationship she should stay with her friend he should buy her a phone let them be together. I don't want any relationship stress. Have moved on.

a a na...
person no go get friends again?
na wa o

Magnoliaa:
It's like the spread of this redpill thing is 'directly' proportional to the rise of ''simpism'' and perceived victimhood in men because WTH are these stories everywhere?

abi o...
me sef i dey think say this one na cock and bull

ibiye gini?
na who be dis one? abeg

Emergingnation0:
That's where 95% Afonja in Nairaland are hiding to display their melicious hate against Igbo .

i just dey tire sef

gypsey:
I hear this scammer Adegbole have also being messing about with small boys too. He must be a pedo.

I've never heard that one, but I'm not even surprised

nduprincekc:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4thLI8fK6Y
Please subscribe to my channel �
A Lady slaps a guy proposing to her in the public

What exactly can we called this public embarrassment

Me I'm thinking this one is staged

Motateevee:
In a recent sermon during his church thanksgiving service. Pastor Enoch Adeboye, a renowned teacher, professor and General overseer of the Redeemed Christian Church of God worldwide reveals that while growing up as a young boy, he was actually better at the subject, English language than mathematics but was constrained to opt for Mathematics because when it was time for admission into university. it was the only course that offered scholarship for students.

Watch video below:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyQhAMjI25w

He should have stayed a Mathematics professor instead of scamming millions of people, as he currently is. Though, there's only so much money you can get from being a professor so his decision makes sense. May this man burn in the deepest depths of hell.

Just a casual reminder as to how much of a scamming, lying, crook Adebole is:

Anyone not paying tithes will not go to heaven:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ITb-x8m49Y

God is killing people to masturbate his own ego:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIPMnjvq8do

Adebole current scamming and looting profits 2022:
https://answersafrica.com/pastor-enoch-adeboye-net-worth-is-he-the-richest-pastor-in-nigeria.html

Adebole: "put your secretary out of a job because of your own personal failings":
https://twitter.com/PastorEAAdeboye/status/1222438077660049411

Adebole's long, self-indulgent rant on the power he exerts over his wife:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CClSeZxljZA/?hl=en

Adebole cannot comprehend the concept of cooking for himself:
[url]https://twitter.com/PastorEAAdeboye/status/1229463155753046016?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1229463155753046016%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-africa-53488921[/url]

DeepSight:
Wholly disagree, but I sense that this might be a six vs nine argument in terms of perspective and thus impossible to resolve.
Thanks nevertheless, for your time.

I don't really see anything that I said that was an issue of interpretation or perspective. Most of my issues with the article were not on opinionated grounds but with the factually incorrect, deceptive, and unfounded claims it constantly made.

Same to you, though. I don't wish to keep you here any longer than you would prefer to be.

DeepSight:
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/02/can-robots-be-engineered-to-actually-feel-pain/

Sorry, I didn't see that you had already responded forwarding the same article to me.
Treat my previous comment as a response to yours.

DeepSight:
LordReed, I am generally taken aback by your suggestion that a robot or machine can feel pain. I really feel quite at a loss for words, but more importantly I feel that this suggestion really amounts to going too far on your part - in a desperate bid to foist consciousness on matter.

I would recommend this very short write-up to you, which I believe captures things succinctly enough, if you will heed -

https://mindmatters.ai/2021/02/can-robots-be-engineered-to-actually-feel-pain/

I know I wasn't the one being recommended the article, but I'm not particularly convinced by it.
I'll just place in some excerpts and write my thoughts on them.

Granted, his is a minimal self, in the sense that he lacks reason and moral choice. But it is a self. He experiences life as a dog and he has feelings and opinions generated by that experience. A robot is not alive and does not have a self of any kind. There is no known way to cause a robot to have a subjective consciousness, which the dog naturally does. So roboticists resort to fudging between simulations of feeling and actual feeling.

I agree, mostly. Disagreements on what a "self" is notwithstanding, this seems factually correct.
What is quite puzzling, however, is the article's constant assertions that seems to suggest that a robot cannot have a subjective consciousness. Just because no known way exists to accomplish a task does not suggest that no way exists. It is only indicative of our current ignorance on the subject.

Yes, provided that that is what the robot was programmed to do. There is no “self” in there. Not in the sense that, when a puppy is trained to heel or fetch, or avoid jumping up on guests, we are communicating with his “self,” to instill proper social behavior. We don’t program the puppy. We teach him, the way his mother would — except that we teach him different things.

This is a pretty bold claim to make, considering that there is no scientific consensus as to where the "self" arises from. It makes the assertion that the self can not be generated by programming, even though there is no good reason to make this assumption. It also fails to entertain the possibility that animals are "programmed" by their nervous systems. A self-teaching robot is not programmed to execute the task required. It is programmed to be able to learn how to execute said task. This is, although heavily simplified, how deep learning works.

Absolutely, and the discover that the human brain can manipulate electronic signals quite efficiently — if the interface is delicate enough — is the most promising development in prosthetics in many decades. But, to be clear, it is the human who is experiencing the sensation; the robotics is merely obeying commands from the central nervous system.

Yet another unfounded claim.
What is the difference between experiencing a sensation and obeying commands from the central nervous system?
And why the use of the word "obey"? Would you say your eye "obeys" commands from your brain? It might be slightly accurate, but it is definitely charged wording.

I love the little blurb that comes after this: "The paper requires a subscription". What does that have to do with anything? It's so out of place.

Agan, “empathize” is in quotation marks. Because, the reality, unwilling as the roboticists are to admit it, is that only life forms can empathize — because only life forms can actually suffer. A robot can be programmed cleverly to appear to empathize or suffer. But there is nothing in there but programming.

Admit? Admit what?
Whether this article likes it or not, nothing it itself proposes has been proven without a shadow of a doubt. There is nothing that even slightly indicates that only living beings can feel pain, unless you consider current lack of understanding a valid basis for completely discarding a line of inquiry. By this logic, people who claimed that propelled flight was impossible were not just speaking from a place of ignorance but objectively correct.

Life forms — human, animal, plant, fungus — communicate in various ways, usually with others of their kind. They are alive and they have needs. The robots will not communicate at all. They only carry out their programming. It’s unfortunate if seniors living in institutions are stuck with robots for company but let’s not delude ourselves about what is happening.

Yet another baseless insinuation that communication is somehow distinct from "...carrying out [one's] programming" .

Anyway, I read another one of its articles, one which the article you forwarded linked to. You can read it here: https://mindmatters.ai/2019/03/the-real-reason-why-only-human-beings-speak/

I don't plan on analyzing this article to as much detail as I did the previous, but its last paragraph is quite telling. It's amazing how people who peddle these theories never apply as much scrutiny to their own views as they do to "debunking" those of others. I doubt you'll be finding any proof of the "immaterial power" that they speak of any time soon, but that seems to be a nonissue. I wonder why.

DeepSight:
Diridiri, let me ask you this. Do you think it is theoretically possible to create a machine that feels pain. I trust you to dwell carefully on this question. Try also not to be clouded by your default perspective thus far.

In this I would further ask you to answer the question with respect to -

1. Physical pain and
2. Emotional pain.

Thank you.

My answer to both questions is: "I don't see why not".
I have yet to be given a convincing reason as to why any of this is or should be theoretically impossible. It definitely doesn't seem mechanically impossible.

VULCAN:
A stupid response.

Why didn't you also quote where God told him not to kill the boy at last?

Nairaland has too many dull people.

Ah ah nah... abeg fear the prophets of God o..
Maybe she didn't hear the angel talking na
You know when Abraham was alive car no dey for road, nowadays cars just dey drive for road dey make noise
Maybe car noise block the angel's voice...

WriterNig:
The heart of women is desperately wicked. I'm literally shaking right now. After women fear devil.

Never ever leave your child in the hands of any woman, not even the mother, your sisters or anything female just to be safe...

My sympathies goes out to the father of the dead girl and the family. May God grant them the fortitude to bear the loss.

1. And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
2. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
3. And Abraham rose up early in the morning...

biggy00000:
God is in the same place he is (not was) when His son Jesus Christ was crucified.

While I sympathize with you on the passing of this child, remember all things work for good for those who love God.

God didn't save Jesus because Jesus was carrying the sins of the world, and he "doesn't abide with sin".
So you're saying God let the little child die because the child was too sinful?

Hateandthunder:
I thought nothing is too hard for God to do. What's the excuse now?

He was busy preying on 14 year old children bro

Dliquidmetal:
Time to make some good dough with this things you so much believe in Abeg we no want excuses o,just go on Twitter to get directives.
We need proves not excuses and una mumu fear tactics

Ee....
So with juju you want proof but with Oledepo and co you no want proof
okay oo...

DeepSight:
I think its astonishing that you would think its astonishing if someone said its theoretically impossible to produce a machine with the attribute of consciousness as we understand it. Because this is a question that is truly alive in the sense that its is well debated even among scientists. This is way beyond the small matter of incredible scientific advancements which we would have thought impossible in ages gone by. This is something which goes to the root of theoretical possibility. It is as fundamental a question as probing if travel into the past is possible, or if teleportation is possible, or if observing what exists outside the universe is possible. It is not just a question of the ordinary advancement of science - it devolves upon certain inherent principles of reality and existentialism.

I say it is astonishing because it is an unfounded claim. I could not understand someone saying it is theoretically impossible to produce a machine with the attribute of consciousness because the theory of consciousness is so little understood that I would have to wonder what exactly they meant by "theoretically". Saying something is "theoretically impossible" requires that a theory exists in light of which the thing in question might be impossible.

You say that it is as fundamental as the problem of time travel or teleportation or probing outside the universe. It isn't. Those three problems are very reasonably considered impossible. The topic of time travel is far beyond my depth as a non-physicist, the second is technically possible if you somehow copy every single molecule in a human being's body, and the third is also beyond my depth. What I am certain of, however, is that the supposed impossibility of three of those tasks rests on good justification. I don't think I have heard from you any solid reason why consciousness requires an immaterial component to function. You just asserted that it did without any real justification.

You say it devolves upon inherent principles of reality and existentialism. Which principles?

DeepSight:
In this matter you should note that there is also the philosophical imponderable of proof of consciousness. Because you can invent a machine that so perfectly simulates consciousness that it is impossible to tell the difference between that machine and a conscious entity for all practical purposes. However you will never be able to conclusively know that that machine is conscious because consciousness by its very nature is a subjective experience. Indeed I would be surprised if you do not know that it is said that no one can even be sure of the actual consciousness of the next human being - you can only experience your own consciousness. You cannot enter into another persons consciousness - you will live your entire life trapped within the walls of your own consciousness.

So if you understand that you cannot even prove the next human being to be a conscious being as opposed to a simulation, how do you go about proving that that advanced AI of one million years from now actually has self consciousness. It is for all purposes unknowable - and you can be sure that my position is that something such as a machine or a computer cannot have self consciousness - and no, this is not an astonishing or even fringe claim. It is well within the realm of modern thought that a machine may not ever be capable of self-consciousness - and at all events, it is certainly the case that even if it were, proving such may eternally be impossible.

I agree with the sentiment that it may be impossible to tell whether a human being has consciousness, because it is only something that one can presuppose another possesses. However, if there is no way for one to completely discern whether or whether not another has consciousness, then wouldn't creating a system similar enough to our brains work? Theoretically, if we built a machine with a brain that was an almost perfect digital mapping of a typical human brain, which then exhibited astoundingly human behaviour, expressed human emotions, and displayed human inclinations, would that not be sufficient? After all, we ourselves are not certain of the consciousness of others, so why should be expect to be 100% certain with the AI? A reasonable level of certainty should be enough.

DeepSight:
Now this is a very good question but I would suggest that being of a different nature does not rule out the possibility of interaction. To use a loose analogy matter exists in different states such as solid, liquid and gaseous. All of these states can still interact notwithstanding being of different consistencies. Indeed the consistencies even often overlap. Likewise you may say that reality consists of different consistences, spiritual (or intangible if you prefer that word), ethereal and material. These differing consistences not only interact but even overlap. Please this is only a very loose analogy to visualize the point. It is not intended as an exact representation of anything or as scientific fact.

I would opine that any substance, regardless of composition, that can interact with physical substances is indeed physical.
I am coming to regret even bringing up this point, because I have a deep confusion with the concept of "immaterial substances". How would one even describe one? How do they operate? Again, it seems like an overly convenient way to ignore any possible questions on the nature of the substance in question - after all, if it is immaterial, you wouldn't expect the person suggesting them to know the answer to that. You wouldn't take me seriously if, whenever I were asked how something worked, I simply told you that tiny invisible intangible birds were responsible, would you? It's too convenient.

Xxxplicit:
Hello nairalanderz ... Netflix premium and porn hub for just 2k with 3 years subscription chat me on WhatsApp o/7/o3-49-98-416    please serious buyers ...

MaxInDHouse:
So what are you doing on the religion section?

Where did it say "only religious people here"?
I come to the religious section because it is entertaining.

MaxInDHouse:
Who appointed Paul as an Apostle for the nations?
Answer:

But the Lord (Jesus) said to him: “Go! because this man is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel. Act 2:15

For your information whatever the apostles penned down has nothing to do with you a gentile because Jesus never sent them to you:

These 12 Jesus sent out, giving them these instructions: “Do not go off into the road of the nations, and do not enter any Sa·marʹi·tan city; but instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 10:6-7

That's why the Apostles stayed in Jerusalem throughout until the destruction of Jerusalem, it was Paul that Jesus chose specifically to connect all gentiles to himself.
So in the absence of Paul's letters Jesus doesn't know you!

Acts of the Apostles is not a gospel.
Acts of the Apostles also plays favoritism with Paul. It keeps avoiding talking about James, Jesus' brother and leader of the Church.
It's propaganda for Paul. I won't even be surprised if Paul hired someone write it.

Again, only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Everything else is extra.

Oh, so because Paul said something that means Jesus agrees.
Jesus was saviour of the world even though Paul didn't say anything.

Jesus didn't tell Paul anything abeg.
After Paul finish stoning people he went to one far far place then came back and started talking "Jesus told me so so so", as if is not only him and 2 other people that were there.
He was lying abeg.

these pictures eh, blood of jesus
let vaseline not lead me into temptation oo

Karemarealty288:
If I call Nigeria Zoo now..they will tag me Ipob.

abeg close your mouth

adetula148:
There is this lady I love so much, we work at the place, and we were good but she happens to be a Jehovah witness.

We have been dating for a year and half now but most times I have issues with her texting other guys and she kept saying they are just friends.

You can call me a fool but sometimes you love someone so much that you don't want to loose them.

Anytime I try to tell her about how I feel about her texting other guys giving them impression that she is single and always looking out for someone who happen to be a witness but always tell me it's me she loves and those guys are just her friends . Going out to see other guy's on a date and sometimes lie to me , she get mad and never for once say sorry . And when she says sorry, the same thing repeat itself.

Then I just let go and assume those guys are just her friends and I can't stop her from texting her friends but there is something within me that keeps telling me something is wrong. Like I love her so much but I still have this trust issues ,like I want to be convinced that I am wrong and try work on my trust issues.

Just yesterday I just login to her Facebook because she gave me her phone sometimes to help her format it and restore her apps back but she could not remember her password, so I had to reset it and get them working.

So I login to her Facebook then I realized she has been sneaking out to see another man who happens to be a witness because my place of work . We spend 2 months in and 2 weeks out , even her time off she plan on going to see him yet lied to me she wanted to go write exams and look out for other opportunities and she told me we would see when we out and spend time together .

Like we go on leave and off days same time ,for me we were so close and we even kissed and hugged that same week. Like she was already certain to end up with this guy yet she still call me and tell me she loves me . But one thing about me is I can't keep things to myself I got mad then I texted her .

She greeted me well then I suddenly asked her about the guy . She denied it totally and asked if I had a prove . Then I sent a screenshot then she said "did I not tell you that I can't marry someone who is not a witness then I was like Bleep". This same person we talk almost everyday , see everyday , kissed and do crazy stuffs even at work now say all these to me. Like I almost died yesterday. I told her all this then she said " I just love you as a friend and you are my best friend" .

Then I asked since when ? She just ignored me all through then line busy. I just blocked her and delete her number because she was not even sorry .

Here is my question, why are witness like this ?

This will be my first experience with them and I will say this really hurt me. Like I can't even think well. So a relationship of almost 2 years just a waste?

So all those I love I love you were just jokes? I just pray God heal me fast .

Like I really loved her. Now I don't know what to do. The job I am managing for now we both work there. How do I face her? Like am still looking out for another job but now I just have to leave this job and move on.

I just decided to share this with you all so you can learn from my foolishness and advice me on what to do.

Do have a nice day .

Jehovah's Witness people are not supposed to be "equally yoked with unbelievers" so they avoid unnecessary mingling with non witnesses.
The marriage thing is really common. Maybe she loved you and she was pressured by her parents to find another Witness.

DeepSight:
All this being correct, was unnecessary for you to explain: I know and agree, but thanks for taking the time - I like meticulous discussants.



Patience friend, it is just one step on a ladder I am putting up. You see, the point here is that they had not even started to experience the world, and there was no "nurture" to speak of by the time differences could be discerned. Such as one being eminently more expressive and aggressive than the other.

Now add this to the nature of Identical Twins. I chose them for a reason - "Identical, or monozygotic, twins occur when a single egg, fertilised by a single sperm, divides and makes two babies." So you see, its tricky to even resort to genetics to explain any radical difference here.

So taking away both physical "nature" (genetics) and "nurture" (experiences) what could account for such radical differences.
You know my answer already - whats yours?

That's quite a specific question.
Unfortunately, I'm not a behavioural geneticist or psychologist, so I can't answer this question satisfactorily.
However, as I have opined before, I am yet to be convinced that the lack of a definite answer is indicative of influence from the supernatural (a word that I have put a great deal of effort to avoid).

DeepSight:
Experience and the capacity to experience is what hints at an inward dwelling user. Because as I have argued earlier on, a camera cannot "see" anything, it is merely a tool for capturing images. Same goes for the eyes. Even the optic nerves and optic lobe are only involved in interpreting visual signals. There is the obvious need for a being who is the recipient of that which is interpreted and delivered.

Everything about the physical system logically evinces this. All of your senses, from sound to sight, to taste to smell to touch - infer the same thing. Signals are being passed and interpreted but for what and to what, if not to an experiencing being. The entire construct would be meaningless without an experiencing being, and in truth this requires the sort of consciousness which we are not able to bequeath to even the most advanced artificial intelligence.

Only a being is capable of conscious experience - much less self-conscious experience and everything about the physical body patently suggests tools set up to deliver that experience to the actual being.

In the first paragraph, you claim that there is a need for a being to receive that which is interpreted and delivered. I've already stated that this function is doable without the assistance of an other "being". I'm yet to receive a reason why an immaterial being is necessary for this function.

In the second paragraph, you make an astonishing claim: "...this requires the sort of consciousness which we are not able to bequeath to even the most advanced artificial intelligence". I assume you do not mean that we currently lack the technology required to accomplish such a feat, but that it is theoretically impossible. It's a baseless claim. I'm certain that, 5000 years ago, it would have been said that human beings were unable to penetrate the skies or alter the weather; all things we are very capable of today.

The third paragraph misunderstands my point. What I'm saying is that consciousness is not a metaphysical substance but an algorithm. It is a process, and a multifaceted one at that. Consciousness is a function of the being in question, much like walking, sleeping, or salivating are.

But that's not as important. Let's assume that you are right and said immaterial being exists. What makes it conscious, though? How does its own consciousness work? And, assuming you have a definite answer for that, why can't human brains use the same processes as well?

Moreover, can an immaterial substance that can interact with material substances be said to truly be immaterial? How does it even interact with the material shell?

cornelboy:
Do you have a religion?

No

cornelboy:
Which ones are the holy scriptures

Who wrote the gospels?

The Gospels are eyewitness accounts on the life and death of Jesus Christ.
They are the holy scriptures. They are the most reliable.
Letters written by Paul don't matter. He was just some random preacher who heavily emphasized the spread of the Gospel to the gentiles.

DeepSight:
Indeed I am suggesting just that because these radical differences could be observed even from their earliest infancy.
What do you think accounts for that.

I'll answer your question with another question. Where do mental disorders and disabilities come from? Were people that were born sociopaths just born with a malicious "immaterial component"? Even though there are accepted correlations between the mapping of the brain and the way these disorders manifest?
Furthermore, what is responsible for physical radical differences between children? They come from the same parents.

Reproduction does not produce perfect copies - if it did phenomena like natural selection would not work and epidemics would have wiped out the human race already. Whether physical or mental, differences exist. However, as I stated in my first comment, this personality can still be manipulated by personal experiences and one's perception of these personal experiences such that, even though two people might have been born with a basically identical mental framework, that framework is altered in such a way that their personalities differ radically after a decade.

On the examples of your twin brothers, giving the meticulous planning that would be required to make their experiences completely identical, I doubt that they had experienced the same things, thought the same thoughts, felt the same emotions, and gained interests in the same things consistently for the entirety of their lives. Given the self-feeding nature of the human personality, even one slight different in an experience might compound.

And even though they were just different from the day they were born, I don't see how this hints at the existence of an immaterial self causing this to be so.