I am sorry to appear unkind but ghost stories are one thing and stories of psychosis are another. Both can be scary but one is much easier to explain.
Psychosis
Definition
Psychosis is a symptom or feature of mental illness typically characterized by radical changes in personality, impaired functioning, and a distorted or nonexistent sense of objective reality.
I wanted the medical definition [of psychosis] entered into my reply because I think it is important that all readers fully understand what it is that youve said.
The appearance of unkindness is one thing; I can accept the fact that it is very likely that some people will choose to believe my story is false or somehow contrived. Such occurrences really boil down to an issue of someone deciding that my character is in question.
In our society it is rather common for people to automatically presume a person is lying, simply because their experiences dont mirror our own. Our biases preclude us from accepting the possibility that our own lack of a similar experience isnt justification for denying the potential for an incident outside of the norm. Instead, we tend to pass judgment with very little basis other than our own limits for doubting the claims made by others.
Let us suppose someone was to issue a statement declaring oatmeal to be the absolute best food theyve ever had. Now I (personally) do not like oatmeal; in fact, I cant stand it and want to puke whenever I smell it. If I were to operate on the basis of my own limitations, I would be forced to conclude that the person, who loves oatmeal, is either lying or totally wrong about their experience.
But that would be wrong of me. Not only is it highly probable that someone will like oatmeal; it is almost guaranteed that my own personal dislike (of oatmeal) is decidedly in the minority.
Now an astute reader might be tempted to point to my dislike of oatmeal and make the observation that I did, in fact, have an experience with oatmeal. Of course they would be correct, but theyd miss the point that I did not have the same experience (as the person who loves oatmeal). And it is that particular lack of experience (on my part) that would prevent me from logically claiming the positive experience to be faulty or fraudulent.
We each have our own personal experiences. Oftentimes those individual experiences are very similar in nature and we can easily relate. But occasionally we have a somewhat unique experience, one that isnt shared by many of our fellow human beings. On those occasions I propose that we are better served if we make allowances, within our own personal limits, for the all but certain probability that we have not, personally, experienced all that life has to offer.
More troubling, to my own line of thought, is the fact that my personal experience is sometimes dismissed as the result of a mental illness. Assertions of that sort go well beyond mere doubt of my truthfulness; delving into the territory of proclaiming my ability to ascertain reality, dysfunctional or absent.
Some would undoubtedly see such an accusation as little more than a mean-spirited slur, designed to attack my person in lieu of an ability to disprove those experiences not shared by a majority of the population. Examples of such tactics are abundant in our society; casting doubt is always easier than facing the possibility that our own limits prohibit us from considering concepts outside of the realm of our own, self-made, boundaries.
I prefer to assume that slurring my person was not the intent here, but Id be rather foolish if I did not address that possibility (however minor it may be). Instead, I will concentrate of the assumption that the comment was well intended and made from the standpoint of personal belief.
Despite the great strides made in our scientific/medical communities, there is much that remains unknown, or unexplainable, to this day. In fact it could be said that the human brain is not dissimilar to the oceans: we delve into it, we explore, we search for answers, but there is far more unknown than there is known. Worse yet is the fact that some of that which we believe to be true, isnt true at all.
Humans are constrained by our own limitations. Real science is the attempt to push beyond those self-imposed limitations. It is the never-ending search for answers to questions that are unimaginably complex and frequently irreducible. It is on those occasions that we must face the fact that, despite our great strides, science is completely incapable (thus far anyway) of a rational explanation for all that we experience in life.
How do we know what we dont know?
Thats one of those questions we humans like to laugh about. The simple answer is we dont. But that simple answer doesnt really explain the complexity of the question asked. Complicating matters further is the fact that some of what we know is false, therefore we dont know that either.
We talk about intuition, or an instinct that sometimes warns us to avoid something (usually perceived to be dangerous to our well-being) but we dont begin to understand how it is that we can know something that we dont know. Is it some unknown power, a sense that is yet to be scientifically discovered? We simply dont know and there are way too many examples for such things to be rationally discarded simply because science cannot explain them.
Most people seem to accept, as fact, that there are times when the unexplainable (from a scientific point) just happens. Are all those people, who believe in intuition, suffering from some sort of mental illness? Are their experiences null and void, simply because science cannot explain them?
In this particular experience (of mine) I knew someone was going to die. The feeling was overwhelming (and very disturbing).
I suppose someone could claim that I had an impaired ability to objectively discern reality but that would automatically necessitate a willful detachment from the reality of the person dying (a few hours later).
That is reality: someone died and I knew they were going to die. Science cannot explain how I knew that would happen (nor can I).
If I may assume that the persons death is not doubted (and that can be proved) then were back to an issue of doubting my character or a claim of mere coincidence. The former charge holds no merit; as there is no reason to assume I am not telling the truth, and nobody (other than me) has any standing to declare what my thoughts were/are or how I felt (now or then).
That leaves us with coincidence.
1. The state or fact of occupying the same relative position or area in space.
2. A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged.
I recognize this possibility, but that calls into question the reason for my prior knowledge (of the death). Science cannot explain it, yet it happened, and the fact that the person died leaves this possibility on very wobbly legs. My vision cannot be attributed to impairment in my ability to discern reality because the reality is that my vision was absolutely correct (much to my dismay).
Suppose I am given the benefit of doubt (regarding my truthfulness) and we accept the fact that there are occurrences that science cannot explain; then we must conclude an inability, on the part of science itself, to explain every experience that happens in our daily lives.
If thinking outside-of-the-box is to be condemned, then we are, in reality, condemning science itself. It is the quest for the unknown that drives scientific exploration, not bold declarations of complete and total understanding of all that occurs in our world.
Appearances aside, we should not succumb to the habit of labeling people, as being mentally ill, simply because we fail to understand the failures of science when it comes to explaining the unexplainable. We ought to be bigger than that, and we should embrace the fact that there is much that we simply do not know.
So how do we know what we dont know?
We dont. But thats only part of the story.