> "consciousness exists outside of constraints of time and space"
I have a problem with this. There is no evidence to support this claim. Why does consciousness need to be anything but the product of biology? We built computers that leverage physical states to organize and compute without needing to tap into some consciousness pool (yes, I realize they are not at the same level yet, but we do have quantum computers in the works). Seems to me that death will feel a lot like before birth or when asleep and unconscious (nothing, not even darkness, no experience).
This relates only to the 'self' that died. All other life continues to experience and new life will bring about new experience, but to consider a persistent self seems counter intuitive to me. I consider myself to be of the larger system of consciousness. This is not a contiguous pool of consciousness outside of time and space, it is the aggregation of all sentient life. My matter and energy a very much intertwined with all else, and I (the universe as perceived through a local pinhole called 'Joe') will live forever. However, what my ego is attached to will certainly expire after it's one go.
Matter and energy can not be destroyed, sure. If you die near a tree, that tree will absorb your nutrients, but you will not experience as you did before (you won't have the faculties needed to consider experience).
Isn't it amazing enough that life made it far enough to realize it made it this far? Why is it necessary to live forever or to have any relation to a previous 'persistent self'? Sure, I see the allure, but where is the logic? I look forward to some evidence on these claims.