In TGD framework one can argue that hypnosis represents an example about the fact that brain is not "private property": hypnotist uses the biological body and brain of the subject as instrument. Therefore remote mental interaction is in question. This idea generalizes: if one accepts self hierarchy, one can assign to any kind of higher level structure - family, organization, species, .... - a higher level self and magnetic body carrying dark matter, and these magnetic bodies can use lower level magnetic bodies as their instruments to realize their intentions. Biological bodies would be an important level in the hierarchy, which would continue down to cellular, molecular, and perhaps to even lower levels.
This view challenges the prevailing views about brain as a sole seat of consciousness and the assumption that conscious entities assigned with brains are completely isolated. Given magnetic body can use several biological bodies although one can assign to it the one providing the sensory input - at least during wake-up state. Note however that it is easy to produce illusion that some foreign object is part of biological body.
For more than decade ago I proposed a model for so called bicamerality based on the notion of semitrance. In semitrance the brain of subject becomes partially entangled with a higher level self - in this case the self of family or more general social group uses the biological body of member for its purposes. Higher level self gives its commands and advice interpreted by the bicameral as "God's voice". The consciousness of schizophrenic might be basically bicameral. Also hypnotic state and dream consciousness are candidates for bicameral consciousness.
Hypnosis as hijacking of brain?
In TGD framework hypnotist and subject would partially share the biological body of the subject, and hypnotist could realize motor actions using the biological body of the subject and also induce sensory experiences by sending suggestions generating virtual sensory input to the sense organs of the subject (this if one accepts TGD view about the role of sensory organs).
One could see hypnosis as a kind of hijacking of some parts of the subject's brain. Could one identify these parts? The general finding is that there is no universal neural or EEG signature of hypnotic state and possible changes in neural activity can be interpreted as neural correlates of imagination. Only in the case of persons highly susceptible to hypnotic induction one can identify a change of neural activity pattern identifiable as a correlete of hypnotic state.
"Hijacking" can be of course criticized for its negative tone. A more positive manner to express the idea is to say that the subject is voluntarily provides part of her brain to the use of the hypnotist's magnetic body. This conforms with the acronym "TEAM" symbolizing the subject's orientation to hypnosis in terms of "trust", "expectation", "attitude", and "motivation".
The neurophysiological findings conform with the view that the really interesting phenomena take at the level of magnetic bodies. The changes - when they occur - take place in prefrontal cortex (PFC) and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC): this together what is known about methods of hypnotic induction provides hints about what might occur in the hijacking process. The almost-prediction would be a correlation between EEGs of the hypnotist and subject person reflecting the sharing of parts of the subject's brain. It would be therefore highly interesting to study the correlations of the EEGs of subject and hypnotist.
Strongly focused attention to hypnotic suggestion is mentioned as a basic aspect of hypnosis and distinguishes it sharply from sleep. This feature brings in mind various altered states of consciousness reached in meditation and it has been suggested that meditation is one form of self-hypnosis. In TGD framework personal magnetic body has layered onyon-like structure with layers characterized by p-adic length and time scales and the value of hbareff. Thefore meditative state could be seen as a resharing of biological body and brain by these layers and even by foreign magnetic bodies.
Do social interactions share something with hypnosis?
More generally, one can also ask whether the phenomena of collaboration and synergy on one hand, and influence, "power" and fight for power on the other hand, could be modelled in terms of the partial ownership of the biological bodies by magnetic bodies identified as intentional agents.
Social structures and organizations are complex networks in which the arrows characterizing relationships between individuals in the simplest situations are uni-directional and static. The person at either end of the arrow is in command. In more complex situtations members are connected by several arrows of this kind, their directions can vary, and need not be static.
Should one therefore give up what physicist would call "single-particle" view and replace it with "many-particle" view by bringing in the notion of magnetic body attaching to several biological bodies and organizing them to loosely bound states of individuals? Under what conditions this kind of partial fusion of conscious entities can take place? Does it occur only only when there is complete trust in either direction or can fear about consequences be enough? It would not be surprising if immune systems against hijacking of the biological body would have evolved: this would allow to understand why the reality of remote mental interactions is so difficult to demonstrate. They could however take place on daily basis in social interactions if the proposed picture makes sense.
The dynamical sharing of biological bodies can be seen also positively: this sharing would make possible collaboration and synergy at much deeper level than we have been used to think. This kind of shared use of biological bodies perhaps defines the direction to which human kind should proceed. Also the possibility to directly experience what it is to be "the other one" - something not allowed by the standard view about consciousness confined inside individual brain - is implicated.
The new view about influence and power might allow to understand better the often highly irrational looking behaviors of organizations and their members - in particular blind obediance of orders and fight for power. The hierarchy of magnetic bodies could serve as a physical correlate for the hierarchy of biological and social structures. In particular, the fight for power could be seen as fight between magnetic bodies for the ownership of biological bodies or lower level magnetic bodies. The dark matter realized as a hierarchy of phases with non-standard value of effective Planck constant would represent a new physics necessary for understanding the physical correlates of these phenomena.
In the new chapter devoted to hypnosis as remote mental interaction I will introduce some basic notions, ideas and theories about hypnosis: the Wikipedia article gives a good overall view about the subject. The techniques of hypnotic induction provide valuable clues if one wants to imagine what hypnosis is. I will also describe the classical test for hypnotic susceptibility using Chevreul pendulum (to me it was quite a stunning experience to find that I am highly susceptible to hypnotic induction!), and propose an explanation in terms of hijacking of PFC and ACC by the magnetic body of hypnotist. The model makes an assumption about the logic of brain functions. Imagined motor action "Don't (really) do this" is realized as "Do this" followed by "Don't" stopping the imagined motor action proceeding otherwise from the magnetic body to PFC to motor regions of cortex via ACC to a real motor action.
In TGD framework sensory perception and motor action are related by time reversal and therefore an analogous mechanism applies to imagination realized as a genuine hallucination unless "Don't" is realized. Hypnotist should therefore hijack the brain regions realizing "Don't" by catching their attention so that they cannot perform their function. ACC is a good candidate for the region in which "Don't" is realized under normal circumstances. This logic makes possible to induce motor actions and sensory hallucinations analogous to dreams. Dreams would be realized in terms of virtual sensory input to sensory organs (REM) rather than only to higher levels in hierarchy of sensory representations at cortex, which do not carry visual qualia conscious-to-us.