I am not trying to make you follow me.   I am just saying there are some questions rising from the OP, and further your assertions, which are getting more mysterious and even spooky.

You claim that you posited a single mind for a single instance.  But is mind something which can be posited?  Is it your own mind, or someone else's mind which you posited?  How did you do that, if that operation had been done?

Because from my understanding, one can only be conscious of one's own mind, and no one else's.
If it were your mind, then how does your body function without the mind, which is posited to the OP or to some other location or storage? 

As your staunch claim, if your body doesn't exist, because it is disembodied from the mind, then how were you able to read my posts without the sights, and replied to them with no hands and fingers to type up?

You claim that you posited a single mind for a single instance — Corvus

No, I posit one kind of thing - a mind - and one instance of it - so just one mind.

But is mind something which can be posited? — Corvus

Yes.

How did you do that, if that operation had been done? — Corvus

I don't understand what you mean.

If it were your mind, then how does your body function without the mind, which is posited to the OP or to some other location or storage? — Corvus

The mind I posit has a disposition to replicate its state with small changes. So it starts in a state and this starting state causes the mind to be in a subsequent state, a state which will be extremely similar to the previous one. And on and on it goes. Nothing is stored.

if your body doesn't exist, because it is disembodied from the mind, then how were you able to read my posts without the sights, and replied to them with no hands and fingers to type up? — Corvus

You don't seem to be getting the picture. There's just a mind having experiences. There's nothing else.

Is it your own mind, or someone else's mind which you posited?  How did you do that, if that operation had been done? — Corvus

I asked @Clearbury that same question and s/he got all huffy and claimed I didn't understand their version of solipsism. It seems that Clearbury is not at all clear on that point, so s/he wants to bury it so that others won't notice the central problem with the OP, namely the lack os a clear account of how s/he understands solipsism.

It seems that Clearbury is not at all clear on that point, so s/he wants to bury it so that others won't notice the central problem with the OP, namely the lack os a clear account of how s/he understands solipsism. — Janus

No, you just seem unable to understand or accept definitions when offered. Anyway, let's not have any more interactions as I don't think it's going to be profitable to either of us.

I asked Clearbury that same question and s/he got all huffy and claimed I didn't understand their version of solipsism. It seems that Clearbury is not at all clear on that point, so s/he wants to bury it so that others won't notice the central problem with the OP, namely the lack os a clear account of how s/he understands solipsism. — Janus

I too, have been trying to get some clarification on the OP, which has some unclear parts. But it seems clear, that the author of the OP, @clearbury keeps avoiding to give out his clear answers to the questions.

If others seek clarification about a point, why do not simply give an answer to clear it up? I feel no need to avoid interaction, as though there is some toxicity there that I need to avoid.

If others seek clarification about a point, why do not simply give an answer to clear it up? — Janus

I have told you numerous times what the word 'solipsism' means. If you haven't grasped it by now, then either you are being obtuse for kicks and giggles or you do not have the ability to grasp the concept. Either way, we are not going to get anywhere.