Lately I have been thinking about the existence of ghosts and the problems therein. In a recent poll in England, one out of every three people claim to have seen a ghost. This is a staggering twenty million people, yet if only one individual actually saw something and the rest were under illusion, then we still have a verifiable phenomena that needs explanation. I propose the following three explanations: scientific, psychological, spiritual, each not necessarily exclusively incompatible one with the other.

Scientific explanation: Arthur Clarke has a theory in which he believes that "ghosts" or physical manifestations could be the possibility of visual recognizance being reversed on occasion. For example, when we see any image, such as a friend, relative or acquaintance, we immediately process that image in correlation to what the brain deciphers. This is about as far as Clarke will go in explanation. However, building on this construct one could deduce the following:

The visual image being observed is recognized and processed immediately. This is the way that all information is visually processed and identified. However, Clarke believes that on occasion, the process is reversed and a visual image is thrown back into the sensory apparatus within the eye (cornea) by the brain. Somewhat like watching a movie from the other side of a theater screen. The image then corresponds to a preconceived rotary action as the info is processed and distributed. This would explain most of the sightings of apparitions in that most sightings are linear (they always seem to be in motion, walking or traveling in some way from point A to point B, or as the info is quickly deciphered and recognized, the image will then fade, also explaining the sudden disappearance of the ghostly image that many people report). This could also explain why in the majority of cases involving sightings, the ghosts are not observed as interacting with their environment because they are merely by-products of information dispersion as visually distributed by the brain; in fact most sightings of re-current ghostly appearances follow the same patterns, i.e. a ghost is always seen walking down the same stretch of road, appearing in the same window, etc. Once again we have the analogy of a film being re-wound and then shown again and again.

However, as temptingly satisfactory and compelling as this explanation might initially sound, I reject it for the following reasons: 1) This would only explain apparitions that the observer recognizes. Clarke states that "ghosts" of dead relatives, friends and acquaintances are merely as explained above. Having observed prior relatives, friends, etc in their living state, it would then fit within his explanation that visual information stored in the brain could be then processed within the sensory apparatus in the backward fashion he suggests. The trigger for such actions he does not address, possibly a traumatic loss that could alter or significantly increase the neurological chances of such action being generated (somewhat like the physical circumstances that accompany the rush of adrenaline; one's physical state can be altered in some way, it leads one to believe that correspondingly, one's metal state can undergo significant, if only temporary changes that occur because of a neurological trigger). This explains sightings of ghosts of individuals in the observer's past but does not explain random sightings of apparitions that the individual does not recognize. For Clarke's theory to work, the visual information processed must be an inherent memory (i.e. the memory of a dead brother who is recognized as a apparition). In many ghostly sightings, the image observed is not recognizable to the observer as anything other than a paranormal anomaly, a mysterious individual, so therefore his argument fails to satisfy the criteria that the images must be visually recognizable to the observer as they are inherent memories from the observer's past; for how else can the information "thrown" back upon the eye be anything other that a stored visual memory? 2) Secondary disputations could include why only living entities are observed as opposed to non-organic observations (such as material objects). Why could not the process involve the informational transfer of other apparitions such as a horrible vehicular accident that the observer suffered from in the past (surely these incidents are traumatic and would satisfy the basic requirements of a neurological trigger as discussed above)?

There are numerous psychological explanations as to the manifestations of apparitions but the one that holds validity in the physical world is that of sleep paralysis. People on occasion have difficulty in transitioning from deep unconscious stages of sleep to being fully awake, somewhat like sleepwalkers do, when they combine several stages of somnolent consciousness. The vast majority of the population has at one time or another had a powerful dream that affected him/her for several hours upon awakening, however some individuals have experienced a far more traumatic episode of sleep paralysis in which the nightmare they are having can at times suddenly manifest itself while in a semi-rational state, causing the sufferer to actually "see" the apparition before him/her. This theory though would only explain sightings at night when the individual is in one of various stages of sleep. This obviously does not account for the many witnesses who are outside these parameters.

We come to the final and most convincing explanation: the spiritual. By the very nature of the subject at hand, it begs to be explained by inference to the spiritual realm. It is the only one of the three explanations that I have offered so far that purports to fit within what we know of the spiritual realm and that is by the very inclusion of the matter at hand. To be honest, I waver between two positions concerning my Christian beliefs about ghosts. They are either demonic manifestations, and if this is the case, then what purpose does it serve the dark realm to impersonate the recently deceased? To convince man that there is an alternative explanation to the afterlife? But there is no clear declaration concerning motive in attempting this (at least to me). There is ambiguity here concerning true intentions. However almost all of the primary accounts of people who witness or encounter these manifestations report a feeling of uneasiness or trepidation, if not outright fear; emotions that would be indicative of demonic activity.

Secondly, I have often thought that ghosts could be aural remnants of traumatic episodes, that maybe the victims of some horrible catastrophe left a spiritual "imprint" at the scene of expiration. For surely if physical actions can leave traces of evidence (an explosion equals a crater) then surely spiritual incidents may leave consequential actions.

Interestingly enough the Book of Enoch has a compelling explanation in chapter 15 verses eight and nine; and though the Book of Enoch is not included in the Biblical cannon, both Peter and Jude allude to it. Is it a possible explanation of paranormal activity in this day and age? I simply do not know.