What I love about all of this is that most of your "knowledge" of the spirits is based on one book and not at all by personal experimentation.
1 What we have experienced shows us that there are many many spirits all over the world, some that have lasted ages.
2 The book theorizes that they are constructs created by Psys and that when the Psy dies the spirit dies. Since we have not found a civilization of ancient human psys (as all of the spirits we have found resemble human forms and not a shadowling's or spriggat's) I believe it is safe to assume the books theories are worthless and the author clearly had little understanding of spirits.
It also states that only the Psy can hear the spirits, while Griffin cannot not hear Duvalier talking to the spirits, Malis certainly does and the rest of the group does not offer there opinion.
Although, according to the Author, only the creator can hear them talk. While it is logical to assume the Author had little to no contact with shadowlings, that is no excuse for us to believe completely into his ignorance. A lot of the debate I've seen here is based on this book and not what we actually observed.
[I don't think Duvalier molds a soul charge into what he thinks the deceased person's mind is. My impression is that Duvalier has to mold the soul charge to fit the person's mind or the person can't be revived. The brain is like a lock and soul charge is like a key. The key won't work unless it fits the lock, and a shaped soul charge won't work unless fits the deceased's brain.
I like this comparison a lot as it also eliminates the dreadful idea that Ert proposed about Duvalier and Nelis being able to change the personalities of the revived.
Alright, a compromise, then: Perhaps some spirits really are the minds of the dead, while some are formed from thought impressions.
I respectfully disagree
First off, Chocobo, this is a wonderful idea. Not only does this not break almost every conclusion of spirits this community has decided to believe in, it also allows all of my conjectures to be valid, a grand unifying theory if you will. Second, you disagree? Why?
1.You (Smartypants, mostly) consistently refer to Luca as Duvalier's construct. As well as many other areas referencing the book.
2. The ancient Crypts
and sorry for the many edits. I am, as I've always been very scatter brained. I'm sorry if I've insulted anyone.