If Consciousness=Self

To my understanding, Locke's view on the "self" is that he believes we have a body, a consciousness/mind, and a soul. The soul is eternal and unchanging, but the consciousness is subject to change. Because the "self" is also subject to change (of which there are numerous examples: a) physical- my hair was long, I got it cut, now it's short b) immaterial- I used to be an atheist, now I believe in God), he identifies the self as our consciousness.

One thought that popped in my head regarding the issue brought me back to my freshman year of college. During that year, I had roommates who would keep me up late at night because they had afternoon classes, but I had class at 8 a.m. every day. This of course led to a massive sleep debt. Anywho, the point of this sidenote is that when I would be in class trying to pay attention to lecture, I would often doze off. And the reason they call it "nodding off" I'd imagine is because you intermittently raise your head after each realization that you are gradually starting to lose consciousness. Interesting thing for me is that when I would be considered more asleep than awake, I could swear I was driving a car at night in my "dream". Then my head would snap up and I'd instantly remember I was in a classroom with a professor talking up front. So what would that say about myself when I was asleep? If my consciousness is myself, wouldn't that mean that I have a separate self that exists while I'm sleeping? Or that myself for a time ceases to exist in its normal state? While sometimes I like to think there's a "me" who lives a separate life while I sleep and that I live my life while he sleeps, I highly doubt this to be the case.

The notion that the consciousness is the self also presents a problem for people like sleepwalkers or people with multiple personality disorders. Let's say a sleepwalker killed someone in their sleep. They were unconscious of the act, but their body still committed the offense. So in this case, should their whole "self" be held accountable for an act committed outside of consciousness? Fortunately that's what the insanity defense is for and we don't force responsibility on unconscious crimes. In the same scenario for a case of multiple personalities, my guess is that Locke would say each personality is a housed in the same body and therefore shares one consciousness, though I suppose our legal system would make provisions so as not to fully punish that body for the acts of a more aggressive personality. 'Course, I know next to nothing about politics, so I could be wrong.