CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Just as real as UFO's. I think they just dont have enough scientific support yet. Same with UFO's. The UFO's hunter do not do enough. Also I think it is easier to find a ghost than a UFO's.
As many of you all probably know i am one of the most stubborn, hard pressed atheist on this site. But damnit, i just cant shake my belief in ghosts. I dunno what it is but theres gotta be SOME explaination for them. scientifically of course. I dont think theyre souls of people or are conscious at all, maybe just imprints replaying on places they frequented in life? I dunno.
I agree and disagree. Often the mind will think it sees what it wants to see, like shadows in the periferal vision. But, there are EVPs and Video footage and im not convinced ALL of it is debunked or fake.
The problem is, we can't debunk everything. And, I think people have a short memory when it comes to what has been debunked and a long memory when it comes to the "evidence" found. But, only if they really want to believe in ghosts. Either way, good luck shaking your ghost belief.
I know we cant debunk everything but we're really good at debunking even the most seemingly perfect videos or pictures. Yet, some exist that havent been. Then theres multiple person experiences which are not really evidence but the sheer amount of them cant be dismissed entirely. And i should reiterate, its not so much that i believe ghosts are real, but that the paranormal in general has some explaination that is more than just "its all fake and made up".
That was a shitty argument to be honest. The nature of dogs and the nature of the paranormal/ghosts are totally different. Dogs so obviously exist because they are physical and, well, right there. The nature of the paranormal however is typically unseen.
For example, lets look at a few hundred years in the past. Dogs quite obviously existed just as they do now with the same proof for their existence, however, people had no idea what germs were, and if were looking at the time period just as germ theory was emerging it was met with much controversy because there wasnt a whole lot of evidence. But today we know they quite literally exist just as plainly as dogs do.
The nature of dogs and the nature of the paranormal/ghosts are totally different.
So now we have to change the rules to allow the existence of ghosts. Isn't that strange to you?
people had no idea what germs were
This is a very good point. At least with germs people get sick though. We saw people getting sick and tried to figure it out. Ghosts seem more like we believe they exist, now let's find reasons to believe that instead of the other way around.
So now we have to change the rules to allow the existence of ghosts. Isn't that strange to you?
How do we have to change the rules? All I said was Dogs aren't hidden. They're really easily observable. The paranormal is not at all that easy. So they really aren't equal.
This is a very good point. At least with germs people get sick though. We saw people getting sick and tried to figure it out.
Yes people get sick, but at first this was chalked up to "god did it". It took more honest investigation to uncover it was something more. Also, with the paranormal people experience things, videotape, photograph, and record things. And whereas these things don't really warrant total belief in ghostly entities in the literal sense, they do suggest something is happening. Like the people getting sick. And instead of chalking these things up to "all fake, not real", I'm saying they should be investigated to find IF there is something more to it. It's dishonest not to. And if there ISN'T anything behind it OR its due to natural causes misinterpreted by people then that's fine by me.
Ghosts seem more like we believe they exist, now let's find reasons to believe that instead of the other way around.
But my belief in the paranormal (to some extent) is not a matter of faith. I appeal to the evidence of photos and such that have convinced me that there's some explaination for "ghosts".
And I don't think it's faith for anyone else really
But my belief in the paranormal (to some extent) is not a matter of faith. I appeal to the evidence of photos and such that have convinced me that there's some explaination for "ghosts".
And I don't think it's faith for anyone else really
Religious people believe they have evidence for God as well. Shocking.
1) what rules? they both are investigatable, ones just more difficult to
Religious people believe they have evidence for God as well. Shocking.
BELIEVE they have evidence that has ALL been entirely debunked. The paranormal has actual physical things like photos and recordings and personal experiences that are being ignored. I think these should be debunked too and if they CANT be then i think thats a serious thing that science should look into.
I mean, are you serious? That stuff is just BARELY evidence.
evidence nonetheless. And wheras that is NOT solid evidence for actual spirits floating around, it is evidence that shit is happening and we dont know why.
Ghosts change form it seems. Sometimes they look like people wearing clothing (why clothing??)
Sometimes orbs
HOLY SHIT WILL YOU LET IT GO? for the tenth time i dont believe nor ever did believe that ghosts in the literal sense of spirits and phantasms are real!! Paranormal activity, however, is different. That is simply a broad term for things we dont have answers for that are being attributed to ghosts.
Sometimes you CAN'T see them
Sometimes you can only hear them...
but only if you use recording devices that allow that?
...I dunno. It seems like hogwash.
Seems like something worth investigating!! Why do people see these things and others dont? why all in the same places? why some times and not always? what causes the recording devices to pick up things? and the cameras to have wierd distortions?
Proof for dead spirit people? NO. Proof that wierd shit is happening that should be looked at? Id say yes.
1) what rules? they both are investigatable, ones just more difficult to
I am talking about the rules for determining if something exists. Maybe better evidence will come out, but until then, I don't believe.
I am under the impression that the evidence is not ignored as much as you think. Again, similar to religion, I think the same evidence is brought up over and over again, so there is no reason to continue debunking it because it has been. I don't know what evidence there is though, so I hope you get a definitive answer. I see the similarities to religion, so I am out. I see why you have problems shaking that belief.
I am talking about the rules for determining if something exists. Maybe better evidence will come out, but until then, I don't believe.
The rules never changed...how do we determine if something exists? Test for it. How do we test dogs? Oh, theres a dog, ok they exist. How do we test paranormal activity? Examine photos, recordings, and structures looking for all possible ways to debunk them. If any cant be debunked, then its paranormal or NOT normal. Does this mean ghost? no. it means what it says. Something we dont know.
I am under the impression that the evidence is not ignored as much as you think. Again, similar to religion, I think the same evidence is brought up over and over again, so there is no reason to continue debunking it because it has been. I don't know what evidence there is though, so I hope you get a definitive answer. I see the similarities to religion, so I am out. I see why you have problems shaking that belief.
Religion has the same stagnant evidence theyve had for years, paranormal occurances keep happening. More pictures, more recordings, more experiences happen every year. Why do they keep happening? Thats what i wanna know
When I say the rules changed I mean that they are different. I don't feel the evidence you keep mentioning needs to be debunked because I don't see it as valid. Maybe it will get cleared up one way or the other.
And yes, I will say that to YOU, because you are just as hostile when attacking OTHER stupid, bullshit, supernatural beliefs.
Hold up there skippy, a few things:
1) where do I ever state I believe in ghosts either in general or in the sense they are supernatural souls?
2) where do I claim he was hostile? He's fully justified in thinking my position is wrong.
3) where do I use the word supernatural? I used paranormal. Me not using the word supernatural should be a big tip off that I believe there could be and most certainly IS a natural explaination for "ghosts".
Here's why pointing out that I'm a hipocrite is flawed:
I don't claim ghosts are real. Theists claim god is real. I believe that paranormal activity has some evidence for it that is persuading me to think there's more to it than just wild imaginations, theists believe out of blind faith with no evidence. I acknowledge I could be absolutely wrong and that's okay, theists claim they are absolutely correct. I promote investigation of "ghosts" through science, theists abstain from it.
I could see where at face value they might look alike but really my position is completely different from a theists.
Ghosts aren't real. That's fucking obvious. The dog comparison is VERY valid.
"Ghosts" in the sense of physical souls returning from the dead? I couldn't agree more. They're not real for pretty obvious reasons. However, I'm not talking about ghosts so plainly as that. I'm talking about paranormal activity that occurs that we have documented that hasn't been explained and sparks my interest, that some people would ATTRIBUTE to ghostly souls. Which is not so easily chalked up to pure myth in my opinion.
And I thought I did a pretty good job of explaining why the dog analogy was incorrect in pertaining to me. Dogs have tons of evidence, but paranormal activity doesn't. However, a long time ago viruses and bacteria didnt have alot of evidence either yet they exist. They couldve been chalked up to "gods punishment" but that's dishonest and scientists investigated things that told then that wasn't quite right. The same goes for paranormal activity. There's not alot of evidence sure, and it could be all misunderstood natural gobbledygook, but NOT investigating honestly doesn't seem right to me. Even if that investigation only discoveres it actually is all wrong because that's okay with me.
You are speaking of the SUPERNATURAL. You KNOW it's fucking bullshit.
Putting words in my mouth. Show me where I said supernatural. I said paranormal. Still quite possibly natural by all means, yet strange and not quite explained.
Evidence does not come into play until we HAVE a ghost.
I told you, there's photographs, EVPs, ect and scientists could actually go to supposed "haunted" locations and maybe find electrical wires that have caused equipment to malfunction or particles in the air that cause orbs in photos. That would explain the events in a natural way and be fine by me.
Unless we have direct, physical evidence of ghosts, a photograph or "recording" is not enough.
We only have minute evidence about many historical things, but they're still accepted. Physical evidence isn't needed always. And if scientists exposed the paranormal as physical causes like chemical leaks, electric wires, light reflections, ect that'd be fine. My point is its dishonest to throw everything away without seriously investigating it.
For example,
If archeologists uncovered a very very strange bone that matches almost no fossil records, would they just say "nah it's obviously fake, toss it" no! They'd investigate the hell out of it! Tests after tests. And maybe they discover a new animal, or maybe low and behold it was just an oddly shaped chicken bone. Either way they won't know for sure if they don't test.
These pictures and experiences people have and recordings and everything in such large amounts suggests that there's SOMEHING worth investigating more. I just think its dishonest to dismiss it all like the wierd bone.
And one thing, what if all you had was some pictures of the holocaust? That isn't physical evidence, so would you automatically assume its fake or useless? No.
Even though LOTS of people believe in ghosts, there is still no science behind it.
There is no "Ghostology" department at Harvard. That sort of thing just can't be studied because there's no real evidence.
I mean, there are people trying to pass off strange occurrences, which ARE real as MANY things. Ghosts, gods, demons and loads of stuff that just isn't real. It seems like the exact same sort of wishy-washy evidence for religion also exists for ghosts.
Things that are unsure or unreliable like EVPs, photos and whatnot.
First, if ghosts show up in photographs, why can't we detect their "photons" with our own eyes? If light is capable of bouncing off of a ghost, what is it made of? If it is capable of producing sound, vibrations in air, then what is making that sound?
Why can't we put it in a box? Why does it so conveniently avoid capture, yet amateurs like ghost hunting teens or kids can take photos or EVPs?
Any real attempt to communicate with a ghost is met with silence.
There is no "theory" to ghosts. There is nothing solid regarding ghosts or the undead or supernatural or gods or demons or an afterlife or anything like that.
Trust me, I DO Hail Lord Satan DAILY, but I am not so silly as to think there is actually a guy down there with a red suit and horns, nor do I think that up here there are a bunch of dead people wearing sheets or doing "creepy" things such as being caught in photographs or making noises that can only be heard if you heavily distort it.
It really just seems incredibly silly, to the point of being unable to take it seriously.
It does not surprise me that the reason I don't think ghosts are real is the same sorts of reasons I don't think gods are real.
Even though LOTS of people believe in ghosts, there is still no science behind it.
There is no "Ghostology" department at Harvard. That sort of thing just can't be studied because there's no real evidence.
I mean, there are people trying to pass off strange occurrences, which ARE real as MANY things. Ghosts, gods, demons and loads of stuff that just isn't real. It seems like the exact same sort of wishy-washy evidence for religion also exists for ghosts.
Things that are unsure or unreliable like EVPs, photos and whatnot
We have investigated it and debunked some, but also acknowledged not knowing the truth about others. And i damn sure know it could very well be a mixture of psychology and natural causes. Theres no "ghostology" but there is photographic analysis, structural investigations, and psychology that should be used to better explain these things. It could be an interesting thing to investigate. Why do people keep having experiences in the same locations over and over? Why do photographs in these places show certain anomolies that cant be recreated there intentionally or anywhere else? Ghosts? No, probably not. But i think its interesting to see what it would be. Youre under the assumption im looking for confirmation that ghosts are real. no, i just think theres more to paranormal happenings than "its all rubbish". That rubbish could be actually interesting routes into psychology or other areas.
First, if ghosts show up in photographs, why can't we detect their "photons" with our own eyes? If light is capable of bouncing off of a ghost, what is it made of? If it is capable of producing sound, vibrations in air, then what is making that sound?
Why can't we put it in a box? Why does it so conveniently avoid capture, yet amateurs like ghost hunting teens or kids can take photos or EVPs?
Valid questions with valid answers that, in my opinion, are far too easily dismissed.
There is no "theory" to ghosts. There is nothing solid regarding ghosts or the undead or supernatural or gods or demons or an afterlife or anything like that.
Not true. Ive heard many different theories. One of course being that they are a mixture of psychological misinterpretation of sensory information and uncommon natural causes (like wierd light reflections or electrical malfunctions and such). And another that says "ghosts" are just imprints of energy on quantum space or something. Its pretty complicated. You can look it up. These things are interesting to me and should be looked into more than they are.
Trust me, I DO Hail Lord Satan DAILY, but I am not so silly as to think there is actually a guy down there with a red suit and horns, nor do I think that up here there are a bunch of dead people wearing sheets or doing "creepy" things such as being caught in photographs or making noises that can only be heard if you heavily distort it.
You're a satanist? i never knew. I dont do the whole "hail satan" thing even just as a mantra.
It really just seems incredibly silly, to the point of being unable to take it seriously.
And that's your opinion and that's fine. It could be right, but im not so ready to just dismiss it all, given the large amounts of happenings and pictures and theories and the whole mess of it.
It does not surprise me that the reason I don't think ghosts are real is the same sorts of reasons I don't think gods are real.
You're dismissing evidence that im not able to so easily dismiss or overlook. I dismiss god because ive heard every argument and seen every piece of evidence be destroyed, there's literally nothing but faith. But paranormal activity is a large and fascinating "field" if you will. I cant just easily let it all go without trying to rationalize it first
Also, I am nearly positive those "orbs" have been debunked, along with most other "evidence" for ghosts.
If a LOT less of it was proven fake, you might have a point.
If religion was real, gods were real, even I'd admit that ghosts have a good chance of being real.
But same with magic and psychic and all that.
It's just not real. There are many things that are not explained, but sometimes... there is no answer readily available, and claiming ghosts or the paranormal doesn't seem like a wise choice to jump to.
Also, I am nearly positive those "orbs" have been debunked, along with most other "evidence" for ghosts.
If a LOT less of it was proven fake, you might have a point.
If religion was real, gods were real, even I'd admit that ghosts have a good chance of being real.
But same with magic and psychic and all that.
It's just not real. There are many things that are not explained, but sometimes... there is no answer readily available, and claiming ghosts or the paranormal doesn't seem like a wise choice to jump to.
And i agree with you! Damn man i dont think spirits from beyond the grave exist! BUT something is causing these orbs to appear in pictures, and if it wasnt dust or light refractions, then what is it? What caused the ones we cant explain yet? Why cant they be duplicated in the same conditions but different locations? For instance, i went to Gettysberg and out in the fields i took pics that had many circular orb anomolies in them. Ive also taken pictures of my grandparents farm fields in the same conditions and no such thing appears even once. I find that strange.
If archeologists uncovered a very very strange bone that matches almost no fossil records, "
Yes, this would be VERY different if we were not talking about human produced recordings and photos.
I have seen photos of MANY crazy things, and even seen live action video of aliens, ghosts, powerful magic, but those are only in movies.
If we found a GHOST FRAGMENT, things would be very different.
What you are doing seems to be taking a human produced transcript and using it to claim ghosts are real.
That is VERY similar to using the Bible to prove a god.
A clever argument, but no REAL proof.
REAL proof is being able to go to an old mansion and seeing a ghost, obtaining knowledge only the ghost could know, and verifying that it's true.
After that, it would no longer be an issue.
That CANNOT happen because ghosts are not real. Religious people say you can't prove religion right OR wrong.
But you CAN prove it right, is the funny thing. We just need a god to speak.
Same with ghosts. You are saying I can't prove it right OR wrong, it's just a mystery still, yet you CAN prove it right by finding a REAL ghost and displaying it in real life, rather than through a dubious recording or a low quality picture in a person's basement.
Yes, this would be VERY different if we were not talking about human produced recordings and photos
The photo distortions and audio are not human produced, they are human recorded but the human didnt affect the outcome. They are just two raw pieces of evidence, you got your wierd bone, and your unidentified photo anomolies. One gets dismissed, the other is really looked at.
REAL proof is being able to go to an old mansion and seeing a ghost, obtaining knowledge only the ghost could know, and verifying that it's true.
Can you go to the past 3 million years ago, see a dinosaur and obtain knowledge only it could know?
Now we do have bones to show they existed, but we also have these paranormal pieces of evidence.
After that, it would no longer be an issue.
That CANNOT happen because ghosts are not real. Religious people say you can't prove religion right OR wrong.
But you CAN prove it right, is the funny thing. We just need a god to speak.
Same with ghosts. You are saying I can't prove it right OR wrong, it's just a mystery still, yet you CAN prove it right by finding a REAL ghost and displaying it in real life, rather than through a dubious recording or a low quality picture in a person's basement.
Ok seriously im going to end this conversation if you cant grasp the concept that i agree 100% that literal spirits arent real. Im only talking about things we havent explained that people say are ghosts but could really be... [insert explaination here].
But this debate is titled "Are ghosts real or fake", and it just seemed like you were trying to explain the unexplainable as paranormal or supernatural, rather than just a misunderstanding or anomaly that has a perfectly reasonable and already known generally, but not specifically cause.
Each and every photo or EVP one acquires MIGHT be unexplainable, but the actual thing as a whole?
There might already be an answer. Maybe: People are pranking you
People WANT to believe so hard that they fabricate evidence
People are misinterpreting what is actually mundane, and calling it insane, just for not understanding it right away.
But maybe it IS a ghost, or maybe it IS something else.
But there's no proof it's anything out of the ordinary. Earth is one planet out of billions. Very small in this universe.
For it to violate laws of nature, or to come up with new ones that allow the dead to speak would be interesting, but ...unlikely.
But go for it. If believing that paranormal stuff is actually a HUGE mystery that isn't explained is fun for you, then go for it.
A lot of claims that are ghosts are actually strong residual energy from past events that have happened in areas. It's like walking into a newly built house and it feeling "dead" while walking into a historical building and it feeling "alive". Tradgic moments are usually accompanied by strong energies such as fear, anger and the like. These are usually the "ghosts" people refer to but, are not actually ghosts at all.
What about ""strong residual energy"" energy from explosion of proto-star that sun and our planet came from? That was really huge event. If something like shooting 4 people could end up as a curse or something what about old battlefields or Hiroshima? Those places must be overfilled by magical creatures :D
Lol magical creatures. Stars and planets? I see you really didn't understand what I meant. Most old battle fields are thought to be haunted. Believe it or not those are where you'll find a majority of ghost hunters have visited at least once in their life time. Also, what I implied doesn't necessarily pertain to just tragedies.
You have said that some lets say "intensive" events can create some kind of ghosts. So logically things like huge explosions could do same, same as volcano eruptions, Nuke tests... etc.
Actually, I said they weren't ghost at all. Residual energy, is something different. It's like a recording. Doesn't ever have to appear as an apparition. Could be a sensation or a good feeling that you get when you enter a home. Even one that corrupts you over time.
If the brain utilizes energy to form emotions, then it is possible that ghosts are the remnant of massive emotions that produced so much energy that are yet to be converted.
Which explains why Haunted houses have a dark past.
But why does the energy behave the way humans do, because by all accounts it shouldn't, and doesn't. Also an example: if you boil a pot of water on a stove the temperature rises, the pot is like the body and the flame is our consumption of energy. As soon as the consumption stops the gained energy is lost leaving only the waters basal kinetic energy, in a sense the corpse. But the amount of time it takes for the energy to dissipate is not a long time.
What makes you think that Emotional Energy falls under the energy types that is known to science?
Just to let you know, there are cases where memory is inherited by transplant patients. Which means that science does not even know where memory is stored. Let alone manage have a good hypothesis of the origin of Human Conciousness
What makes you think that Emotional Energy falls under the energy types that is known to science?
How do you know that emotional energy is different from those that are known to science?
Just to let you know, there are cases where memory is inherited by transplant patients.
Show me them, and prove that the information in question is new to the person, and is something that they could not have otherwise known.
Which means that science does not even know where memory is stored.
We do indeed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory this is for just a rudimentary understanding of memory feel free to pursuit the links within the page.
How do you know that emotional energy is different from those that are known to science?
Simple, steam engine works by converting water into steamWhile living beings on the other hand works by digesting food which they turn into kinetic energy which is regulated by emotions.
Until science has found the origins of human concioussness, we will never know what makes emotions
Show me them, and prove that the information in question is new to the person, and is something that they could not have otherwise known.
- Just google for "inherited memory in organ transplant recipients", youl find plenty of articles
We do indeed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory this is for just a rudimentary understanding of memory feel free to pursuit the links within the page.
You do realize that the whole page was about Memory but it never said where it is stored, right?. Well, scientists does not really knows
Simple, steam engine works by converting water into steamWhile living beings on the other hand works by digesting food which they turn into kinetic energy which is regulated by emotions.
Steam is produced by increasing the KINETIC energy of water molecules such that they break their lattice network and ascend into a gaseous state, steam is produced by kinetic energy same as food digestion.
- Just google for "inherited memory in organ transplant recipients", youl find plenty of articles
Perhaps you should argue for biological memory, not personal memory, the cells of organisms may maintain a biologic memory of genes turning on and off as well as responding to changes in the environment like chronically performing osmosis in highly saturated environments and change their "behavior" accordingly.
Nope, im pretty sure you have read of cases where transplant patients get to have nightmares of being murdered and accidents. All because their organs came from victims of said incidents.
But you assume that the cause of the Nightmares are the organs, however an more plausible and rational explanation is the side effects from surgery. Speaking from experience surgery changes peoples mindsets and often their personalities because they have been removed from "normal" society.
I have googled the keywords nightmares,and transplant recipients and lo and behold no sites provide evidence of it save a post in favor of it with everyone stating their belief in this claim with no evidence.
I already gave you the link. Read the "Modern Example". It said there:
The most stunning example of cellular memory was found in an eight year old girl who received the heart of a ten year old girl. The recipient was plagued after surgery with vivid nightmares about an attacker and a girl being murdered. After being brought to a psychiatrist her nightmares proved to be so vivid and real that the psychiatrist believed them to be genuine memories. As it turns out the ten year old whose heart she had just received was murdered and due to the recipients violent reoccurring dreams she was able to describe the events of that horrible encounter and the murderer so well that police soon apprehended, arrested, and convicted the killer.
Other than this link, I have nothing else to give. You can say this is a hoax, but hey, we do not even know what were talking about. So, I believe that our argument is only for the sake of fun
I was not under the impression that after a heart was "Murdered" it could then be transplanted into a human and function properly.
I am also confused as how the police could responsibly apprehend and arrest a person based on an 8 year old's nightmare. And how that same nightmare could then be used as substantial evidence in a court of law to convience an entire jury of a mans guilt.
I also do not believe that a man going to jail based on a child's dreams is not "for fun" a mans life is now ruined because of a heart's "memories" and a child's nightmare.
It says that the girl found some key clues, how it happened and of what the murderer said to the victim. The murderer was caught and convicted. It said that they were unable to find out where or when this happened so there is no real proof that the story is anything more than an urban myth.
It says that the girl found some key clues, how it happened and of what the murderer said to the victim. The murderer was caught and convicted. It said that they were unable to find out where or when this happened so there is no real proof that the story is anything more than an urban myth.
Shadows don't mean anything, light is tricky, shadows can come from anything. I thought my dog was on my couch last night because of a shadow of a pillow.
I selected fake but I think neither is probably ever gping to be for sure. Here's why:
1. No one in history can prove no ghost exists. Why? Because no one knows every corner and person of the world in history. And even if you could prove any theoretical evidence of ghosts false, there's always the possibility that they exist and they just aren't ghosts that people can see or sense in any way, outside of legends.
2. Some scientific evidence actually says that it's possible that human consciousness may have more to do with the electrons in one's brain than the physical, chemical brain. If that's the case then just hypothetically, since electrons don't rot with the rest of the matter right, consciousness could exist in some weird form after the body has died. Even if it is for a short time.