In order to know where the consciousness “goes”, you have to scientifically experience the consciousness, and that is not possible, because the consciousness is no physical but a metaphysical phenomenon, so it is not scientifically but philosophically knowable. The consciousness is merely indirectly but not directly provable. So it is not as provable as, for instance, a particle. It is also not a program. So it is also not directly provable by a computer program or something like that.
Concerning consciousness and the subject/object-dichotomy:
The objectivist says “the consciousness is a product of our brain”, but the subjectivist says “the consciousness is a product of my thoughts”.
That are two very much different statements.
What if both objectivity and subjectivity occurred simultaneously? Infinitely.
The problem is that they can not be brought into real harmony. They are always in conflict with or at least in parallel to each other.
Says what authority with what evidence?
I am an authority, and my evidence is my experience. 
In or out? Make up your mind. 
What is your suggestion: “in or out”? 
Perhaps in reality one can imagine what it might be like, but I don’t firmly believe any one individual can have a solid and justified understanding of what it truly is like to be deceased. Linking this to dreaming about being dead (note: not dying), I am sure it is impossible to dream about something that we have never witnessed, i.e. death itself is not part of our realm of dreams.
But, as technology and neuroscience improve, machines may follow energy beyond death, recording what occurs.
What if it is not recordable?
All energy can be recorded, you just have to creat a machine that can , or a lifeform.
I know that all energy can be recorded, but energy does not necessarily show us the way of consciousness or the death. That was what I meant by “not recordable”. There is no knowledge but only speculation about what consciousness and death physically are - not to mention what they non-physically are.
Imagination is sensory. Imagine a cat, you picture what it looks and sounds like; imagine a surprise you summon up the feelings of shock. There’s nothing sensory (as far as I know) about death. I can’t imagine being in a deep dreamless sleep either - except in an abstract third-person sense - because there’s no image to imagine.
Certain brain activity is correlated by certain experiences - and in cases where it’s possible, causing this activity (with e.g. magnetic waves) causes sensations, etc. Given that we don’t know… what reasons do we have to believe that a brain that’s completely inactive experiences anything?
Speculation leads to study, tests, experiments. Knowledge and understanding can take decades even centuries. Science is an evolving thing. The machines that measure brain activity are evolving. I have read that they are working on getting images from thought patterns. Some patient highly curious determined geniuses could discover a way to get to measure or track what occurs after death.
Being dead would be a lot like sleeping only without the dreaming part.
That’s where the saying you sleep as practice for when you’re dead comes from. The big eternal sleep.
Yes.
No reasons, unless there would be a purely spiritual consciousness with merely occasional connections to a brain.
The question remains - what reasons would we have to believe in that?
But there is an issue that has almost nothing to do with science and any kind of technology or engineering. This issue is that a word like “death” and other words (for example also “consciousness”) are still concepts and not things. So we have to define and possibly redefine these words in order to understand them better and better. And “death” is no word for a thing but a description for no thing (no-thing, nothing), and this makes it so difficult to be an object for science and technology or engineering. Imagine the said machine records that there is no thing (no-thing, nothing), which means that death is just what the word “death” already means. This machine would approve our linguistic and philosophic definitions. And that would be good (too), wouldn’t it?
