For the time being I had merely meant to allude to the usual use of "self" to infer the supposed ownership of a consciousness, hence the difficulty experienced when a proponent of such an ownership is challenged to prove the validity of the claim, the existence of what is supposed to be owned, as opposed to the probablity of a philosophical zombie.
In my experience there is nothing better to prove or disprove the existence of the conscious self than the sense of the loss of it in the instance of a mutually achieved sexual orgasm, though that is perhaps, beyond the present point.
To be unashamedly poetic about it, I think of the self as the pebble that hit the calm surface of the pond to cause the ripples of experience, those which we affectionately name "life", the self thus being the very cause of all the trouble, for the harder the pebble hits the pond, the greater the waves that rock the boat.
Buddhism, by the way, is notoriously paradoxical with regard to the self.
On the one hand we see this
103. Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he indeed is the noblest victor who conquers himself.
plus an entire "Attavagga"
section of the Dhammapada, devoted to the self,
and on the other hand the proposition of the concept of Anatta,
usually translated as "no self".