If by "us" you mean our consciousness, or "soul", I don't think science has the ability to answer that with hard data. But why do you think that there is an "after", after death? People of many religious persuasions think that there is an "after", and it seems hard to believe that there is not an "after". But bottom line, if our consciousness is contained in the neural structure of our brain (I think it quite obviously is), then after you're dead, then you're dead.
Sucks doesn't it?
It's no wonder people flock to religion even when they should know better.
The soul is immaterial, so it falls outside the category of subjects proper to investigation by empirical methods. It's for philosophy to define science, because philosophy is the science of first principles. Natural science, by definition, cannot establish its own first principles. Modern science is roughly equivalent to empiricism, which is properly a subcategory of human knowledge.
But why do you think that there is an "after", after death?
It's intuitive, which is why most people at most times have believed in some kind of life after death.
We also know this with certainty from reason alone. A receiver receives according to its mode of being. Since our minds can apprehend timeless or eternal truths (i.e., good is to be done and evil avoided, 1 + 1 = 2, truth exists), our minds must be eternal. Thus, we know with certainty that our souls will survive death. The fate of the body after death, however, is a matter of faith. Perhaps this is why most of the ancients believed that the soul after death descended to some kind of murky underworld.
But bottom line, if our consciousness is contained in the neural structure of our brain (I think it quite obviously is), then after you're dead, then you're dead.
This idea is self-refuting. First, if the mind is a machine, how can I know if it's functioning properly? Thus, my belief that "consciousness is contained in the neural structure of our brain" could be erroneous.
Secondly, if conciousness reduces to matter in motion, then my statement that "the mind transcends the brain" and your statement that "consciousness is contained in the neural structure of our brain," must both equally be the product of blind material processes. Both are of equal "value," if value has any meaning in a world reduced to matter in motion. Yet we know that these statements are contradictory, so they cannot be of equal value. Thus, the assumption that "consciousness is contained in the neural structure of our brain" must be false.
But your hypothesis is commonly held in the scientific community, exemplifying the danger of treating as high priests scientists who hold erroneous beliefs regarding important philosophical issues.
Sucks doesn't it?
Fortunately, the belief is demonstrably false.
It's no wonder people flock to religion even when they should know better.
Aristotle was far wiser than most modern scientists, as was St. Thomas.