If hypnotism exists, rival wills exist, specifically the will of the hypnotist, and the will of the subject. Hypnotism is the science and art of causing a subject's will to conform with the hypnotist's will. Which means it presupposes the subject has a will of their own. If the subject has a will of their own, they defacto own that will. It's theirs. It can be honored, or violated, but it can't be said not to exist. If they act upon that will, they act with their body. The fact that hypnotist and the subject have separate bodies supports the same proof. If the subject has a body of their own, they defacto own that body. It's theirs. It can be honored, or violated, but it can't be said not to exist. And it can't be said to be hypnotist's body, any more than it can be said to be the hypnotists will, because that would mean that hypnotism didn't exist.
Bringing the question of emotions into this changes nothing of the basic scheme, because the hypnotist has emotions, and the subject has emotions. Ergo, the subject defacto own those emotions. It's theirs. You can't even ask these question without presupposing ownership of these things. You say "our gut" and "our emotions" but the word "our" itself implies ownership.
