This article came into existence as the result of S. Zimmer�s lecture at the 4th European Congress in Prague. The lecture was, in and of itself, very interesting but the most interesting and amusing part was at the end. The �Questions and Comments� time ran over schedule because so many people had other viewpoints. On our way out I commented to another participant that there were many �blind folk examining this particular elephant� referring to the old story concerning the Three Blind Men examining an Elephant. This is my attempt to be yet another �Blind Man� trying to explain the working of the mind in terms that are relevant to Tai Chi Chuan.

That having been said, it is not that any of the descriptions were wrong, merely different. The brain and the mind, a product of the brain, are of such a vast complexity that any picture painted in words will not necessarily be wrong, just incomplete. It is very much a case of choosing those models or descriptions that suit your purposes and that you are comfortable with.

For the purposes of this discussion, a neuron or brain/nerve cell can be considered as a �Black Box� with similar properties to a �control processor�. A �control processor� is a simplified computer in that it has no disc, keyboard or monitor and an embedded program that has a dedicated purpose, i.e. controlling a car, washing machine or video recorder. The main difference between the neuron and a �control processor� is in the construction and operating physics; the neuron is electro-chemical whilst the �control processor� is electronic. This results in the control processor being faster at transmitting signals, limited by the speed of light in the conducting material used against the control processor being limited by the speed of migration of charge carriers through a solution. The neuron has the advantage in that can perform multiple processes simultaneously whilst the control processor can only handle one.

A modern �super computer� is built using many simpler processors that are interconnected with one another; IBM is currently planning one using 1024 processors. A brain contains from a few hundred neurons, in nematodes, to many millions, in humans. The type of work it is intended to perform, i.e. weather forecasting or computer animations, determines the numbers of connections between the processors in a super computer. In the human brain there is a basic arrangement of connections determined at birth by the fact that it is human. This is expanded to some extent shortly afterwards as the infant becomes mobile, but the bulk of the connections are set up during the period when play is at its peak with a small increase in connectivity during the remainder of the being�s life.

In this section and the ones following, any numbers given in italics are human specific and are approximations only. They are approximate because, like all things to do with biology, there is a small variation between individuals, but this does not affect their validity as guides.

Let us first consider the problem; we have to control a mechanism that only has a distributed low power energy source, added to which the rate of data transfer is low, 0.1 sec each way along a neuron, from head to foot and back. All this means that we cannot control the mechanism directly in real time because of slow response times both in the mechanics and in the data processing. A similar problem exists in the mundane world in processes such as rolling steel plate to the required thickness. Here the response time of the machinery is far too slow, due to its sheer mass, for it to be controlled in real time by a computer regardless of the speed of the computer.

This is handled in Industry, and there is evidence that the mind works in a similar fashion, by modeling the process to be controlled. First, a small note; a model does not necessarily bear any resemblance to the thing that is being modeled. The only thing that is relevant is that it can be used to predict some property or properties of the thing that is being modeled. The manner in which things like a steel mill are controlled are by having two models that are running simultaneously, one is running at some time in the future, the other is running in the present. The time difference between the models is the response time of the apparatus that is being controlled.

The �present time� model uses the input parameters that were in used a delay period in the past and records the output that is currently being produced. That for the future uses those input controls that will produce the desired output. Between these two models sits the real controller. This compares the desired output with that that was actually produced and then adjusts the future input to compensate for differences with what was actually produced. In the case of the mind what gets adjusted is not only the input controls but also the models themselves.

This view of the mind/brain functioning explains why it takes so long to learn how to do something correctly (see the Power Law of Learning below). As the mind is not preprogrammed with everything that we need to know and do it is necessary for actions to be learned. During the learning process the models that are in use for the action or problem being solved have to be corrected. Initially the errors are large and easily determined and corrected but as time passes and the performance improves the errors become smaller, more difficult to determine and the corrections harder to enact.

Another property of the mind that helps the learning process is that the models that are produced are similar in nature to the templates or modules used in programming. This means that if something learned in the past is of a similar nature to what is being learned at the present the relevant parts of the other activity can be used as a starting point and so hasten the learning. It also explains why, having learned to perform an action with one hand, it is so much easier to then learn to do it with the other. Whilst this is most obviously applicable to physical activities, it also applies to mental activities. A common (?) activity such as mental arithmetic also follows the same rules, the more practice the easier and faster the activity can be performed.

Further consideration of this model demonstrates the sheer computational power of the brain. If you exclude pole-arms from consideration four is the maximum number of combatants that can surround an opponent without them interfering with each another. If you now consider the action from the point of view of the surrounded person: his mind has to handle four pairs of these models simultaneously in �real time� if he is to �survive� the engagement.

Another example would be a lecture. If the speaker and subject are interesting then one is not aware of the seat but if either is uninteresting then it is all too easy to become aware that the chair is indeed hard and uncomfortable. What is postulated as happening is that in the first case only the information from the lecture is passed through to the personality as being important but in the second it has been decided that the chair comfort level is more important and so you are made aware of it. It has further been postulated that the personality itself is also a mere artifact of the subconscious that has been created for the purposes of social interaction and to accept responsibility for the actions of the mind. This fiction is created in such a manner that the fiction itself believes that it thinks and decides for itself whereas all that happens is that it is made aware of a consistent set of appearances.

Experiment has shown that, when there is occasion, the subconscious mind will quite happily present information to the personality as true even if a subsequent examination of a recording made at the time of the event shows it to be false. There are other occasions where even apparently basic data is falsified when presented to the personality. The most obvious example of this comes from the field of vision studies. Here it has been found that as much as 90% of what you can currently �see� has been fabricated by the lower mind, even in the case of a trained observer.

This agrees with the traditional eastern religious view that we are imaginary personalities living in an imaginary world.

Experiments have been carried out on people to find out which parts of the brain are active or otherwise during meditation and prayer. These experiments consisted of injecting (willing) experienced practitioners with a tracer dye when they indicated that they had reached the state that they were attempting to attain. Afterwards they were scanned to determine those areas of the brain where the dye had concentrated and these results were then compared with the results obtained whilst they were just sitting quietly. The results showed, for the meditators, an increased activity in the part of the brain associated with attention and, for those praying, an increase in the part that handles language. This difference is not surprising given the fact that the one practice uses images and the other words. There was a decrease in the activity of the parietal lobe, the part of brain that is responsible for the distinction between self and other. This would explain the sensation of becoming one with the universe. It is also responsible for the temporal sense that would account for the loss of the sense of time. Another part that showed increased activity was the limbic system that is responsible for tagging of experiences as being important. This would be responsible for the awe felt for the experiences that occurred and for the importance that is attached to them when they are recalled later.