Hello. As a new Steemian, I've only just read some of your posts. I enjoyed several, so I am following you now.

This posting, however, contains numerous assertions for which I wonder how you could possibly have evidence. Examples:

"In fact, ghosts are everywhere." ¶ "There seems to be a close association between aspects of the dead person's life and the manifestation as a ghost." ¶ "Ghosts can interact with the living, perform purposeful activities and respond to ongoing changes in the environment." ¶ "Ghosts may try to complete tasks or projects they failed to finish before death." ¶ "Some ghosts appear solid as living people because they do not know they are dead. Others manifest as partial apparitions because they are confused about the transition from life to death." ¶ "Some ghosts create odors or sounds, associated with their habits, like cigar smoke or singing." ¶ "Most times, ghosts remain in a particular place because they are emotionally attached to a building, a room, or special surroundings that affected them during their lives, or played an important role in their death."

How did you reach these conclusions? Even if you have evidence that some ghostly encounters represent a genuine phenomenon, how can you claim to know what ghosts do or don't know, and whether they are confused, and about what, if so?

Guessing the mental states — even of living persons — can occasionally be difficult. Surely the task is that much harder when the mental state you seek to identify belongs to an entity whose existence is nebulous, on a plane whose reality is in dispute.

If I seem too dismissive, I apologize. I don't claim to own any maps of reality's borders. What's more, I have seen an apparition or three myself, though even at the time I doubted they were ghosts, exactly. And I'm aware that folklore has worth, to some extent.

Nevertheless, I like to stay within lasso range of actual evidence, just so we can work out how deep the quicksand is where we're standing.