If I show any more evidence of ghosts I'll be banned by James R.
Bans here are automatic, based on accumulated warning points. If you are banned, you only have your own actions to blame. It's not that hard to abide by the site posting guidelines. Lots of posters never receive warnings.
He's against the posting of evidence for ghosts. How very scientific!
I'd love it if you could present some good evidence for ghosts. Are you planning on doing that some time soon? Or are you only able to cut and paste youtube videos, which you then spam to our forums?
I believe ghosts are parts or "shells" of ourselves left behind when we die and are composed of all the obsessions, addictions, regrets, traumas, and fears we lived with when we were alive. The ghost is that side of ourselves that never fully matured in life, like Freud's id, and which hangs around in a limbo state until it learns to let go and move on with the rest of our souls. Not all ghosts are like this. Some are residual images played back from the past. Poltergeists are like the unconscious trickster inside adolescent kids. And some spirits I believe are non-human in nature, perhaps negative beings feeding off the fear and despair of living humans.
These beliefs of yours come from somewhere, but they have nothing to do with any evidence you've ever presented here.
I think you believe this stuff because you believe stories you've read or heard from people. That is, you believe in a particular mythology of ghosts. It's similiar in many ways to having religious faith. Perhaps your belief in alien spacecraft and ghosts etc. is what you have substituted for an overt religion. That kind of thing is not uncommon for those who lose their faith in a god.
Looked at critically, of course, your beliefs about ghosts are a bit of a hodge-podge. You say, simultaneously, that ghosts are like negative remnants of a person that remain (somehow) after death. But then you also allow that ghosts are like recordings ("residual images"). But then again, you say that you think ghosts are part of a soul. But not all ghosts. Some ghosts are other-worldly spirits, like demons or whatever.
Basically, ghosts are whatever you need them to be, from moment to moment. As long as they exist for you, it doesn't actually matter what they are.
Free-floating energy does not embody human emotion and behavior.
There is no "free-floating" or "pure" energy. Energy is not a substance. There is no "pure" energy. Energy is an accounting system. Ultimately, it's just a number related to the physical state of some kind of system.
I don't buy into the materialist assumptions of science.
You don't buy into the scientific method, either. That much is clear.
I believe the mind subsists in a domain independent of the brain maintaining a coherent structure and energy that allows it to interact with the world.
What would that "domain" be? Hyperspace? The ghost plane? The demon-filled heavenly reaches?
And how can a number allow a physical thing to interact with other physical things?
You're throwing words around, but you're not making a lot of sense.
I get it. For proponents of the woo, like yourself, energy is like a mystical, magical substance, undefinable and ineffable. Like ghosts, it can be whatever you need it to be. Science has a rather more precise definition of the term - one that makes the concepts associated with energy falsifiable and therefore scientific, unlike all this ghost nonsense.
It is not a "product" of electrochemistry.
You face the problem that every believer in souls faces: how, exactly, does the immaterial soul influence the material body? What is the mechanism? Waving your hands vaguely in the direction of "energy" doesn't begin to solve the problem.
That is only one of its interactions with the world. I don't have any hardcore evidence of this other than phenomena such as ghosts, terminal lucidity, and various exceptional deathbed experiences.
No hardcore evidence? How surprising and unexpected!
There's no hint of mechanism for quantum entanglement or dark energy either.
Regarding quantum entanglement: the idea emerges from an examination of an explicit "mechanism", namely the "mechanism" of quantum mechanics itself. Entanglement wasn't an idea that people dreamed up, so that they then had to go searching for ways to rationalise it, unlike your ghosts. Rather, entanglement is a prediction of a rigorous mathematical theory, verified by empirical experiments.
As for dark energy, a number of possible mechanisms are proposed. However, the term "dark energy" itself is mostly a place holder at present. There is an established empirical effect that needs an explanation. We're not sure what the best explanation is yet, so we do science.
In contrast, there is not even an established empirical effect to be examined in the case of ghosts, other than effects to do with psychology of belief.
P.S. I was going to say that there's no religion-like belief in quantum entanglement or dark energy, but of course there is. There's a fringe element, led by people like Deepak Chopra, for whom quantum entanglement or dark energy are of the same flavor as the mystical "energies" applied by believers in souls and ghosts. These people draw on the parts of the science that suit their purposes at any given time, and ignore the rest. For them, entanglement means whatever they need it to mean, just like a ghost is whatever you need it to be at the time.