That might be just it. A category for, at least, some types of the explained, but a definition for *certain types * of unexplained. The ones associated with things that make people think they have encountered a spirit or disembodied entity, as opposed to non-airplane flying vehicles, for instance.
No, not everything you described is a ghost. That’s why we have investigations, to see if there is an explanation we can provide. If not, it might be a ghost, or maybe we weren’t meticulous enough.
What I think is a ghost is irrelevent. It’s only what I can prove is a ghost that matters.
There are ‘things’ that sometimes communicate with people when they are in receptive states, often very unfriendly, sometimes very friendly. There are ‘things’ that people ‘see,’ usually in dim light, that resemble human figures. There are ‘things’ that move objects without a visible mover, which make walking sounds around old houses, that appear in photos when they weren’t in the scene, that come to people in dreams an give them information.
Some of these ‘things’ are mistakes, illusions, hallucinations, imagination, hoaxes, light flares or whatever. Those tht are not those things, which meert the requirements set above, people for years have been calling “ghosts.”
Maybe they are angels, ETs, psychic communication, astral projection. maybe they are spirits, or manifestations of one’s own body energy, or astral projectors, or something else. Why shouldn’t we continue to call them “ghosts” until we find out differently?
Maybe a better explanation would be: “Unexplainable phenomenon which people take to be the action of spirits, disembodied entities or other conscious energies or energy imprints.”
I put the assumption in there because those people assume what ghosts are, we don’t really know.
