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?
Do you mean the belief in experiences of a completely inactive brain or the belief in a consciousness with merely occasional connections to a brain?
However. There are some spiritual reasons. Knowing and believing are supplementary, and that can be an epistemological advantage.
Active/Inactive brain; knowing/believing may not necessarily follow an epistemological advantage/disadvantage. Although correlations can be set up: among all possible scenarios: actively knowing,inactively believing etc.,; as advantageous or not- all of them can be thought of as possibilities, although not probabilities.
That an inactive brain is brain dead, or merely asleep presents a further complication, this is why the belief that lead to the literary observation that ‘is this but a dream’? ~ referring to conscious awareness~ Diminishing the value of the above expressed distinctions.
The imagination may likely ,to somehow be tied to this schema , in a manner that further reduces probable toward the possible value of making the
distinction. (As far as reducing even the effect of the belief/knowledge distinction.)
Is this turning toward the downward argument to death, Kierkegaard like, as in This sickness unto death? Contesting existence it’s self to be some kind of illness? ; An illness to be awakened from by the power of the imagination? Not trying to know it on basis of some belief or other, but by using images of death to evoke the sense that death is inherent more in the imagination then in the knowledge of it?
The former may be more impressive then the later expresses, because after all , death is a solitary experience, YES grounded in Dasein, and there is no objective death as well as no objective or object to die. Death is a senseless event, and it is through the images associated with dear, which are available to what we have come to symbolize with that word.
Anyone can form an image of death, but only some one else, and not even of death, but only an image, a picture, a still picture at that, of a formerly image of a moving person.
This death contraindicated the conscious development of a ‘film of life’ whereby the effects of re-presentation were from still toward movement.
Death is the imago, moving backward in time to finally freeze into silence the warmth of a technicolor film, into the black and white of death and re-birth;
transfiguration.
Death is not only imagined, it IS the imagination. It the recurrent re-presentation of life.