"...the existence of the self, a subject that’s still scientifically unsettled."

Shit like this, philosophers, is why scientists don't (and can't, and shouldn't) engage. The words to use are "scientifically undefined", not "scientifically unsettled" - you can't just argue over definitions for centuries and then blame science for that fact that none of you can agree on what you're talking about, if anything.

You enter the realm of science when you have a testable hypothesis, not just some vague idea that reeks of dualism that you can't conceive of not being a "real thing", like consciousness or self.