If solipsism were true, and the only real person in existence happened to be a member of this site:
Solipsism is trash and you're silly for even entertaining it.
You're an idiot. How do you know anything exists other than yourself? What evidence do you have?
Google told me Solipsism is: "the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist."
That doesn't mean other people don't exist, just that they can't be known to exist by you. Known: "recognised, familiar, or within the scope of knowledge."
I don't know where I am going with this.
I might be wrong and that short definition for Solipsism I gave is wrong, but I'm still interpreting it as meaning you cannot prove others exist, because you can always doubt it, and the only thing you cannot doubt is your existence because doubting is thought and you must exist to have thoughts. Obviously what I just wrote isn't indubitable (you just have to try hard enough), but I guess my point is that I think you don't know what Solipsism is... and I feel offended on the behalf of Solipsism for misinformation being spread. I guess.
ANYWAY, to answer your questions:
1. The self, obviously, it is in the definition of the theory. So depends who is reading. In my case it is me, since I am my self.
2. This is way to deep, so I won't bother trying to answer it and just say that I am probably not imagining myself. (imma proofreading right now and gonna say that I think this question was posed by you assuming you were the only one existing, which makes more sense to me, but why have that first question then? Also the only person existing doesn't necessarily use this site... but if they are reading this I guess they do, huh).
3. Only explanation is that Solipsism is wrong, hence you can prove others exist, since they post stupid shit, and you aren't stupid (no offence to anyone, I'm making a joke with a point here).
4. etc: "short for et cetera." et cetera: "used at the end of a list to indicate that further, similar items are included." Gonna assume you just want more thoughts about this whole theory, I gave them at the start of this, so I won't put them here again.
TL;DR I wasted my time, if you read all this, you probably wasted yours too.
P.S. To expand on my proofreading thoughts, if you/me/the self are the only person known to exist, the site isn't known to exist, so saying the only person who exists is a member of this site is a very questionable claim, since if the site doesn't exist (and you can't know it exists), then the statement can be false... you probs get what I mean.
Some solipsists will go as far as to claim that they imagined everyone else in the world. It's completely self-absorbed and nonsensical.
What I find weird about that is that it is adding more the simple definition google gave me.
To be fair, Solipsism can also mean: "the quality of being self-centred or selfish." (Left this part out because it did not support my argument...)
To be more fair, the definition I found was googling the definition, not the philosophy. I imagine the two can differ. I am not going to bother googling the philosophy.
Anyway, the self having imagined everyone in the world can work with the definition, but you are pretty much forced to accept you imagined the whole world, not just people, unless things work waaaay different to how I (the self) supposedly imagined they work (ie. science!). But that is sorta a given if all people are imagined... also wow I am smart, thinking all these things up. Can I technically sue people for copyright since I made everything? Why am I not the richest/best person in the world if I am imagining it all?
Ugh this is getting pretty deep again, so I'll stop because I rambled enough (both earlier, and here now).
TL;DR I believe that might be an offshoot from the proper definition... maybe. Philosophy Solipsism doesn't have to be dictionary Solipsism, so yeah.
While this article talks about drugs, the experiences can also come from dissociation which is a mental phenomenon that can be caused by trauma, stress, mental illnesses and other things.
So while it can seem self absorbed and nonsensical, I don't think that they're seeing themselves as the only "real person" on purpose in some cases. I honestly think most aren't trying to be self centered.
Daydreaming is also considered to be dissociative, but daydreamers don't often take the genuine philosophical position that they imagined the entire universe.
Depersonalization/derealization disorder is a form of dissociative disorder, but sufferers believe that they're not really in control of their thoughts, but I'd consider that to be the opposite of solipsism, since solipsists believe their thoughts actually control others/the universe.
I don't have depersonalization disorder but have dissociated a couple to the extent I was convinced everything was fake myself and others as well. And while I don't really think that's true, the feeling comes back occasionally with the fact that I can't actually prove it because I'd literally have to experience another person's life.
I don't think solipsism is meant to imply that one is in control but I can see how some who believe in it would think that's true.
That line of thinking makes me think of Matrix a lot.
What the fuck are you talking about? Solipsism isn't that only one person exists, you fucking clown. It's that all that can be known is the self. So basically, you start off with no information. You can't trust your senses, so you don't know if anything whatsoever is real. However, the very fact that you're thinking shows you exist thanks to Descartes, so you know at least that you exist on some level, because there has to be a thinking mind having the thoughts you have. Beyond that, it's impossible to know anything.
So by that point, yeah, I'd say solipsism is true. I'd doubt that I am the only person, but in regards to what I can know, yeah, solipsism is true. However, if there was only one person in existence, it'll always be the person thinking that. So to me, I can only be the person who exists.
Congratulations, you pointed out that solipsism can descend into other varieties that mean different things. Unfortunately, it seems solipsism in and of itself isn't that, you stupid wanker. His definition isn't even what the fuck you're pointing out, because he's asking who on the site we think would be the only person, as if it'd be anyone other than the self considering that.
Arg! I don't like solipsism. I remember studying it in college and getting distressed because I couldn't prove anything was real.
However, these days I find it's an interesting idea to look at, but ultimately unhelpful. At least on its own.
1. By definition each of us would have to answer ourselves. Unless we also had an identity disorder.
2. Since I'm the imaginer that question can't really be answered. As to why I would imagine the world being the way it is, I can only guess that I have a deep desire to be punished for some grave offense. Fortunately I don't believe in hard solipsism so I'm off the hook for creating an awful reality.
3. See answer 2. Punishment. Alternatively a vain attempt to concince myself I'm not alone.
Just point out there is knowledge in the world they haven't imagined, if they deny that you can easily prove their assertion of omniscience wrong. Once that's established it's much easier to force them to admit that there are more people in the world than them.
Again, this is wrong. If they were imaging the world, they'd just be imaging it as it happens, so they'd imagine any new information as it's told to them. I've had dreams where I don't know what's going to happen or where I learn things in the dream, even though the dreams are in entirely fictional worlds created in my head.