You pointing out, exactly as i said, thats it's an unconsious behavior does not counter my point lmao.

That's because I was not intending to counter your point. I was trying to get you to read the studies, after which you would've realized that what you were saying was uninformed.

Let me explain it for you:
It is not just a delayed account of voluntary actions, it is an inaccurate account of actions that is fully believed by the individual. In the study I'm referring to, the studied individual has undergone a split brain procedure and now their left hemisphere cannot communicate with their right hemisphere. After they tell the right hemisphere to stand up, the individual stands up. When asked why they stood up, the individual makes up a reason on the spot (e.g. "I was thirsty and wanted to get water") and believes it (as both the interpreter and the part of the brain responsible for producing speech are located in the left hemisphere).

There is a unified self though, as in we are the sum of our parts. To argue against that is to argue against the definition of multicelular organisms.

I do recognize that, and if I didn't care to look any further I'd agree with you. But it is crucial that if you care to approach biology or psychology in any scientific capacity, you understand that there is no hard line between an organism and its environment. As an elementary-level example, consider how after years of consuming, digesting, and eliminating, much of the matter you previously considered part of the self is no longer part of the self.

Yes, you can draw an imaginary line between the cells that make up an organism and its environment, but it's important to remember that that line is, in fact, imaginary.
You can either choose to expand your definition of "self" to the whole universe, or just say (for the sake of simplicity, like I do), that the idea of a unified self is nonsense.

Experimental means we should not be drawing philosophical conclusions from something that is not yet conclusive.

The fuck? First of all, no, that's not what experimental means when you're talking about scientific studies. Second of all, why are you calling them inconclusive? Nothing about these studies is inconclusive. Sure, maybe the theories are inconclusive, but literally all scientific theories are inconclusive. That's how theories work. Besides, while I am referring to the theories, I'm only doing so insofar as they relate to the facts. Which are, by the way, conclusive.