Depends on his definitions. If he defines self as the world around and inside of him, + the sound of his own thoughts + his sensations he feels, he could have a self. It could be like a rainbow colored soup, constantly flowing random magma, but the soup and magma still exists, there are certain properties that remain consistent in everyday people. For instance, the timber and pitch of the inner voice remains constant, this could be the property that gives self its feeling of constance. The timber and pitch is not heard but felt, it is very ambiguous and cloudy but it is not completely inaudible. Inner music is a bit more well defined than inner voice, but inner voice still exists. My own inner voice no longer retains its form consistently though.
Additionally, the fabric of self is held together by chains of old memories, when old memories lose their "specialness" self begins to disappear into the aether as well.
The question I have, is the forums seem to toss around the word "inherent existence" a lot. Not quite sure what is meant, inherent is kind of an ambiguous term. From what I gather, it seems to allude to the idea that objects cannot have a form without being inversely contrast by things which they are not. Not sure though, Google seems to tell me that it is some kind of Buddhist terminology.
Causality here is the constant because if it was not, the uncaused would appear immediately. We couldn't have that!
Seems that their are two viewpoints on this issue. Yours seems to be saying that without causality, all things would appear at the same time, and thus, reach maximum saturation, and due to all existing at the same time, would have no contrast and could not exist. Is this what you mean?
So, there are two viewpoints. The first, in my above paragraph, is that the brane of human consciousness is a limiter.
The brane prevents time from overly flowing and reaching maximum saturation, it functions as a limiter or dam. Thus, the word "damned" may be correlated with entities experiencing a slow speed of time.
The other view is that the brane is a producer, not limiter. Essentially, it says consciousness or experience or existence cannot exist, that only through the brane is special parameters configured for it to exist.
The variant of view 1. says that without branes there is an experience of All and maximum saturation, but it still exists and is not flatlined max sat and percievable.
I personally lean on an odd mix of the two viewpoints. The mysteries of the universe deepen, but can a star tell us how consciousness came to be? Maybe scientists will stumble upon the answer of why consciousness seems to be able to traverse space no problem, that in all of the vastness of the cosmos it pinpointed and targeted Earth. Either consciousness is generated by branes, or it is the All cosmos and sucked into branes like a vacuum. Or it pinpointed and targeted Earth. Or a fourth option I don't know right now. But an interesting thought train to think about, is a brain popping out of nowhere, and suddenly a consciousness appears inside of it. Dont want to sound egotistical but sometimes I wonder if I am a higher lifeform, almost borderline solipism. How can fish have consciousness if I have consciousness? Will I ever be or was I ever a fish? Is it even possible for my consciousness to inhabit a fishes brane? If all complex organisms in the universe died off, would consciousness be localized to fish?
Another interesting thought train, is to imagine the multiverse theory. Imagine a random brain popping up in the middle of nowhere, and suddenly consciousness traverses through an infinite amount of universes, and space to reach that moment in time, and the moment doesn't even last, it's still always moving. Think about the immense about of power that implies, it means branes literally have dominance of time, space, and consciousness. Literally it could pop up in another universe in the middle of nowhere, and make consciousness sucked into it!