It should have been called confabulation, hallucination is not the correct analog, tech bros simply used the first word they thought of and it unfortunately stuck.
Not necessarily - I think it works like Daniel Kahneman's System 1 and System 2. Your conscious system is System 2 - when it's not working correctly, you just fall back to System 1.
Independently, since the whole idea relies on resonance, it may be the case that an fMRI doesn't actually interfere with the "stochastic resonance" mechanic quite like TMS (transcranial magnetic simulation) seems to.
You know the mechanism of TMS is not mysterious. It requires no magnetoreception or "stochastic resonance". It is simply inducing electrical currents to modulate neural activity. Its effects are consistent with the known laws of physics, known properties of neurons, and decades of neuroscience research.
I think you're conflating one question with another. The "why" in question is why altering neural activity in that way results in clinical effects. It is not the "why" TMS alters neural activity.
I appreciate that you feel this way, but the mechanisms behind exactly which neural circuits are activated by TMS are simply not yet fully understood.
From 2024:
> Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive, FDA-cleared treatment for neuropsychiatric disorders with broad potential for new applications, but the neural circuits that are engaged during TMS are still poorly understood.
Again, different question. We know, fundamentally, how TMS causes stimulation/suppression of neural activity, and it does not require magnetoreception. Look at it this way: we don't fully understand how SSRI's cure depression, but we do know their primary target and that their mechanism of action is mediated through that primary target.