Your survivors will experience the time after your complete shutdown. You won;t.

What will you experience then? Going to sleep. Basically like every other time you went to sleep. — Michael Ossipoff

But here lurks a problem, for our notion of sleep is empirical, even for so called "maximally unconscious sleep."

For example, the meaning of a "fully unconscious sleep" from a first-person perspective is the experience of being presently awake but without having memories of being asleep. This is the first-person empirical definition of "fully unconscious sleep".

Without the experience of being awake yet having no previous memories of being asleep, one cannot assert the existence of fully unconscious sleep. Hence the notion of an infinitely long and unconscious sleep is a meaningless sequence of words that contributes nothing to any discussion.

I passed out once for ten minutes. When I came round, I had no idea how long I'd been out. Another time I passed out for twenty minutes, same result. The last time it could be like that, only no coming round. Of course I won't be round to tell the tale. But that doesn't mean it's a tale that can't be predicted, whether truly or falsely. It doesn't sound meaningless - it's an explanation of 'infinitely long and unconscious'.

You never experience a time when there's no experience. — Michael Ossipoff

What do you think about the possibility of everyone's consciousness continuing indefinitely once it has been awakened? Each conscious entity has its own possibility-story that adapts to allow its consciousness to survive within that possibility-story. For example, someone could die in a car accident in my reality, but in theirs, the paramedics are somehow able to revive that someone, so that their reality can continue. Or perhaps there is no interdependence between realities - each conscious entity's reality branches off from one of many source realities at the time of birth of consciousness. Since I can only have conscious self-awareness in one reality, I guess this would mean that I would be the only truly self-aware conscious entity in my reality...?

I passed out once for ten minutes. When I came round, I had no idea how long I'd been out. Another time I passed out for twenty minutes, same result. The last time it could be like that, only no coming round. Of course I won't be round to tell the tale. But that doesn't mean it's a tale that can't be predicted, whether truly or falsely. It doesn't sound meaningless - it's an explanation of 'infinitely long and unconscious'. — Cuthbert

A third party can certainly make sense of your death and say that you are "permanently no longer around to tell the tale", since your corpse can be empirically verified as being deceased according to biological definition. So your death has empirically meaningful behavioural consequences for everyone except for yourself. But that doesn't mean that you can meaningfully refer to your own expiry and say things like "i will be asleep forever", and that is nonsense even from a third-person's perspective.

It is naturally tempting to imagine oneself from a third-person perspective and pretend to witness one's own death, and to mistake this imagined thought experiment for self-knowledge. But this attempt at deriving first-person knowledge by making a transcendental analogy with the third-person creates many philosophical problems by running over the bounds of sense without any regard for principles of cognitive closure and empirical meaning.

There is an incommensurable semantic barrier that separates our behavioural understanding of other minds from our mentalistic understanding of our own experiences.

You wrote:
.

What do you think about the possibility of everyone's consciousness continuing indefinitely once it has been awakened?

.
It does. It never ends. None of us will ever experience a time without experience. Consciousness never ends.
.
Typical Materialists and Science-Worshippers will say otherwise, but they’d be confusing their survivors’ experience with their own experience...without giving sufficient consideration to what they mean.
.

Each conscious entity has its own possibility-story that adapts to allow its consciousness to survive within that possibility-story. For example, someone could die in a car accident in my reality, but in theirs, the paramedics are somehow able to revive that someone, so that their reality can continue.

.
Interesting idea, one that hadn’t occurred to me.
.
But I think that every life always leads to the person’s death, even in that person’s own experience. The experience-story has to be self-consistent, in terms of the physical laws of the world that is part of that story. The person’s death is a consequence of the rest of the story.
.
When that death arrives, the person’s experience would just be that of going to sleep. But full unconsciousness, with no experience or consciousness never arrives.
.
But, strictly speaking, it can’t be said for sure that that final, peaceful, and well-deserved rest and sleep—which I call the end-of-lives, will arrive at the end of this life.
.
Though it’s an unfashionable “no-no”to say so in our dogmatically Materialist culture, there’s no particular reason to believe that the end-of-lives will arrive at the end of this life.
.
I’ve discussed the reason why each of us is in a life. If that reason remains, at the end of this life, then what does that suggest? Referring to what happened before, the beginning of a life, due to that reason—Why wouldn’t that happen again, if the same reason still obtains?
.
That suggests a sequence of lives, for as long as the reason for birth remains.
.
India’s philosophers have been saying for millennia that the sequence of lives continues until we achieve life-completion, after many lifetimes.
.

Or perhaps there is no interdependence between realities - each conscious entity's reality branches off from one of many source realities at the time of birth of consciousness.

.
Every life-experience possibility-story is timeless, as are the abstract if-then facts of which it’s composed.
.
Yes, each life-experience possibility-story is a completely separate, independent logical system.
.
The relation between all of our life-experience possibility-stories is that they all take place in the same possibility-world. Inevitably, for self-consistency, your story’s world must include a species to which you belong, with other members of that species. Among the infinity of life-experience possibility-stories, of course there’s one for every possible being, including the other people in your life-experience possibility-story.
.

Since I can only have conscious self-awareness in one reality, I guess this would mean that I would be the only truly self-aware conscious entity in my reality...?

.
Yes and no. You’re the protagonist of your story, which is a completely independent logical-system story entirely about your experience. But the physical reality in your experience includes other conscious beings, of many species, including your own species.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I’d said:
.

Your survivors will experience the time after your complete shutdown. You won;t.

What will you experience then? Going to sleep. Basically like every other time you went to sleep.

Sime says:
.

But here lurks a problem, for our notion of sleep is empirical, even for so called "maximally unconscious sleep."

.
Nonsense.
.
There’s no “empirical” evidence for “maximally unconscious sleep”. The fact that you don’t remember it doesn’t mean that you weren’t conscious to some degree. Maybe so, or maybe not. You can’t know.
.
Maybe there’s a sleep in which you’re genuinely completely unconscious, or maybe not. You have no evidence one way or the other.
.
It goes without saying that your experience is “empirical” :D …if, by empirical, you mean based on observation instead of numerical calculation.
.

For example, the meaning of a "fully unconscious sleep" from a first-person perspective is the experience of being presently awake but without having memories of being asleep.

.
Again, nonsense. That isn’t evidence of “fully unconscious sleep”.
.
Having no memories from deep-sleep doesn’t mean that you were “fully unconscious”.
.
Maybe you were, maybe not.
.

This is the first-person empirical definition of "fully unconscious sleep".

.
Ridiculous. There’s no empirical evidence of “fully unconscious sleep”. See above.
.

Without the experience of being awake yet having no previous memories of being asleep, one cannot assert the existence of fully unconscious sleep.

.
“One cannot assert the existence of fully unconscious sleep” because absence of memory from deep-sleep isn’t evidence that one wasn’t at least somewhat conscious during sleep.
.
I don’t guarantee that there’s no awareness, no consciousness at all during deep-sleep, including the (eventually) deep sleep at the end-of-lives.

Obviously complete shutdown will occur. You won't experience it...or any time after it. Only your survivors will experience that time.

Not only will you not experience it. You won't know or care about its impending arrival either, because you will be without waking consciousness of such matters, while you're still aware and concsiojs to some degree, before the shutdown of consciousness and awareness.
.

Hence the notion of an infinitely long and unconscious sleep…

.
I haven’t made any such claim.
.
But it’s obvious (or should be) that you’ll never experience a time when you don’t experience.
.
Eternity isn’t an infinite amount of time. It’s timelessness.

I haven't claimed that deep-sleep is completely unconscious. I've emphasized repeatedly that you never experience a time of complete unconsciousness. ...in ordinary deep-sleep, or in the final sleep at the end-of-lives.
.
Other than in Biblical Literalist interpretations, it’s pretty much agreed that there’s an end-of-lives (even if it’s just at the end of this particular life), when you’ll go to sleep without waking.
.
We can agree to disagree about whether, at the end of this life, you’re likely to wake into a next life.
.

…is a meaningless sequence of words that contributes nothing to any discussion.

.
You need to get it straight about what you mean. Rather than waste everyone’s time, it would be best if you would do so before continuing to post on this topic.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Yes.

We'll be there until complete shutdown of consciousness, awareness and perception, but, before that, we'll be in sleep, maybe deep-sleep (because it isn't known whether or not deep-sleep is fully unconscious). ...and, in that sleep, we won't know or care about such things as life, it's problems, menaces, striving, lack or incompletion. ...or time or events. So we also won't know or care about the matter of whether we're going to wake up later.

...because we'll just be in comfortable, restful, peaceful sleep.

I say that's our natural state. Eventually we return to it.

Michael Ossipoff

Like before we were born, but without the prospect of coming to life at some point in time. — CuddlyHedgehog

You can't be sure that there's no prospect of a next life. I'm not trying to make an issue about that, but it can't be proved that there isn't a next life.

In the East, it's widely-accepted that there's reincarnation. At these forums (as I said in my other reply), any mention of it is an unfashsionable "no-no".

Though reincarnation is implied by my metaphysics, the question of reincarnation doesn't much bear on our topic here. But I just wanted to briefly comment that we can't be sure that it doesn't happen.

So easy and yet so difficult to comprehend. We accept those short periods of absence when we are asleep or unconscious because we know we will be coming back round to being the centre of the universe. The prospect of never existing again though...

As I was mentioning in my other reply, even if there isn't reincarnation, or even if this life is a person's last life, the person won't know or care about the matter of a prospect of existing in another life, because s/he'll be comfortably, restfully, peacefully asleep.

Millions of years go by, the planet gets inhibited by another form of life or gets sucked into a tiny black hole. The universe continues to be there, as it always has, occupying infinity with no beginning or end, in time or space. Forever evolving, contracting and expanding. And where are we? Absent. Like before we were born but no starting point this time. Non-existent... FOREVER. Harrowing or liberating?

Liberating. You won't know or care about whether you're going to wake and live more. ...or any other concern, worry or incompletion.

Mark Twain said something that I like:

"I was dead for millions of years before I was born, and it didn't inconvenience me a bit."

Michael Ossipoff

But I did refer to my own (future, fortunately) expiry and the reference works. I think what you're getting at is that being dead will be the state my body is in but that being dead will will not be an experience for me. For I will not exist and therefore will have no experiences. I will not be asleep or passed out forever since I will not exist and something that is asleep or passed out must at the very least exist. And that's true enough, assuming no after-life. And yet I can talk about these things even with regard to my own case sensibly enough without running into logical problems as far as I can see.

On the other hand, if there is an after-life, then 'being asleep' might be the closest analogy. It's the big sleep. Then the trumpet sounds and we wake up. Then it's judgement day. It may or may not be piffle but it's not logically incoherent. So I submit.

Death will be like going to sleep. If there isn't reincarnation, then death will finally become sleep. .

...and that doesn't depend on there being an "afterlife" (if I can borrow a term popular with Atheists and Materialists).

Forget about "not existing". You never reach time time of your complete shutdown at death, or any time after it. Only your survivors experience that time.

When people say that (even from their own point of view), they "won't exist", one can only wonder what they think they mean.

Michael Ossipoff