October 12, 2007 (1:20pm):

A few Nobel Rules, Precedents and Cheng

by Kuan-Chyun Cheng

October 9, 2007 (8:15am):

A few Nobel Prize rules must be observed and knowing them would enable us to understand some unusual phenomena.

Rule #1 is that anyone applying for it would be automatically disqualified.

Rule #2 is that usually, with rare exceptions, recipients are kept in the dark until the final moment of announcement.

October 10, 2007 (11:49am):

This point was also illustrated in the case of this year's Nobel Prize in medicine.

The $1.54 million prize was awarded yesterday to Capecchi, 70, of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City . . . Oliver Smithies, 82, . . . now at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, and Sir Martin Evans, 66, of Cardiff University in Wales.

Evans, asked yesterday about the prize while visiting his daughter in Cambridge, England, said, "I haven't come to terms with it yet. In many ways it is the boyhood aspiration of science, isn't it? And here I am unexpectedly with it. It's amazing." ⁽¹⁾

October 9, 2007 (8:15am):

On basis of their past practice, one can deduce that this rule of secrecy is breached only when compelled by need and circumstances, and only when the Nobel Prize Committee has decided that the individual is a potential or definitely successful candidate for him or her to be contacted ahead of the final dates of official announcement. This was the case with Professor Pierre Curie in physics and Dr. Robert Koch in medicine.

In the case of Dr. Robert Koch for synthesizing the Koch vaccine against tuberculosis, initially since he had along with others made additional vaccines, he wished to receive two Nobel Prizes. The Nobel Committee contacted and negotiated with him. Finally he agreed to be given only one (in 1905).

In these two rare exceptions known to me, two features are shared: 1) they were both given a Nobel Prize, and 2) some clarification was needed from the winners themselves. In the case of Professor Pierre Curie, the Committee might not have been aware of the degree to which Mme Curie contributed to the discovery and wished to let Professor Pierre Curie have a say in it. The reason in Dr. Koch's case was obvious.

In my case, in as early as September 1977, the Committee already transmitted its agreement to give me a Nobel Prize not in 1977 but sometime in the future. Later, since it appeared that I could finish a whole set instead of only "memory," they decided for me to get it after completing the "whole set" including "emotions." (4) The compelling reason for them to contact me beforehand is more than obvious. Otherwise, they couldn't possibly convey their wishes to me.

In my case, because the Nobel Prize Committee wants me to finish the whole set before giving it to me, over the years since around 1999 they have been sending me messages to that effect. Although it's given in a less definite form than was given to Professor Pierre Curie, the most recent message is there as recorded in my article "September 2005 ~ 30/3/07 Nobel Electronic . . ." in my pdf file 2005&7NobelTelp. . .. (5)

October 11, 2007 (12:24pm):

Confirming the reliability of electronic . . . as a communication means specifically also between the Nobel Committee and myself, initially I recorded the following on March 29, 2007:

March 29, 2007 (9:13pm):

Just a little postscript on the Nobel Prize speculation. I'm sending you by e-mail two of my latest letters to the Nobel Prize Committee. In around September 2005, about 1 ½ months before my stomach . . ., I received from that committee a brown envelope containing two DVD discs which I had sent to them. . . . It became an inactive file and I soon nearly died. It's somewhere in this storage bedroom of mine. Without turning the room upside down which I would not do unless my life depends on it, I certainly would be unable to find it. It only goes to show that they were really communicating with me. If I remember correctly, maybe couple weeks beforehand, its Chairman broadcast the message that he was to return these . . . to me. Indeed, soon I received that brown envelope. I was still surprised to receive a letter from them. Although I scientifically proved it to be real, electronic . . . is still not relied on by me as a trustworthy communication channel. . . . That brown envelope confirmed for me. (7)

October 9, 2007 (8:04am) & October 11, 2007 (1:12pm):

Later, on May 30, 2007 (11:03am) I recorded in a footnote in my Justice and Equity for Cheng that the envelop confirming the reliability of this mode of communication between the Nobel Prize Committee and me had been unexpectedly found. A copy of this envelop was scanned and sent out as Exhibits 3a and 3b to Justice and Equity for Cheng, 2007.    October 11, 2007 (1:15pm): The only discrepancy in my memory was the color of the envelop. It wasn't brown like all other envelops of that size I use or receive, but white-- an exception to the rule, accounting for the memory disparity in color.

. . . . . . . . . . (9)

October 10, 2007 (12:06pm):

Moreover, of this year's three laureates, one is already 82: Dr. Oliver Smithies. This lends credence to the 9/Oct/07 before 5 am message relayed to me from the Chair of the Nobel Committee: "One of the other two will refuse to accept " and makes their decision so much better than giving it to me this year. As well, once again it indicates that I have been receiving exact messages from that Nobel Committee and not imagining them. (See above re. return of my DVD discs from the Nobel Committee).

. . . . . . . . . . (11)

4) But why did they time and again tell me that I was winning it "this year," "this year," "this year" ? My interpretation is that unless it's "this year," I'll not be interested enough to do or prepare anything for it, e.g., Nobel Lecture, right now. I'd simply ignore it. I'd then pay no attention to what they want to tell me, totally defeating their purpose of communication.

The important thing here is this: why would they, such busy and important people, wish to communicate with me so frequently since 1999? Recall, that was the year when I finished and finished sending them my 132 hours of video on memory and mind. So, that's related to my work. And, according to their tradition, contacting me means that my work is most likely if not absolutely to be given a Nobel Prize, but there are still relevant issues to be settled first. (supra)

Contacting me with "this year" even years earlier than the actual year of award for me is not lying but a way of making others treat me as, and myself feel that I'm, a "Nobel laureate" before the official date. That's because they know they would make me a Nobel Prize winner anyway in the future, so, to them, I'm or would be a "Nobel laureate." Secondly, contacting a would-be winner usually arises from the Committee's need to clarify residual issues with that recipient. In my case, it's for me to know that to qualify for that Prize, I must complete the whole set instead of just parts or most of it.

9/Oct/07 & October 10, 2007 (2:52pm):

In addition, as the time draws nearer, for someone like me having to write my autobiography plus the Nobel Lecture on a huge field all by myself, it might take more than the usual 2 months between October and December of the same year when the Lecture is delivered. Since they have been contacting me for a long time already, they may as well tell me in advance to make me start preparing the Nobel Lecture earlier rather than later. In fact, that's one of their requests recorded in the above. If not "this year," would I seriously rush to do it? No. Actually, even though told "this year," I still haven't started to prepare the Nobel Lecture. Only a few more pages of autobiography have been added. See above on their comment on the importance of this autobiography.

If I compose a 60-page autobiography like Dr. Kandel did in 2000, that would take about 2 months. Then, adding another 40 pages of Nobel Lecture itself would take an additional 2 months or so. That's 4 months, way longer than the usual (October to December) 2 months allowed other laureates! Perhaps, my bio would have to be trimmed to mere 6 to 10 pages, not 60 pages! Unlike many other people, I've never written a bio of myself like what's put into the Nobel Prize Lectures series. While I must prepare it from scratch, others may only have to do a little editing of their ready-made one(s).

In one sense, in that respect the Nobel Committee has been kinder to me-- waking me up earlier for a more adequate preparation than otherwise possible. No, not "this year," but start preparing for it now as if I were to win it "this year."

5) No reason exists for that much respected Nobel Prize Committee to contact someone or anyone irrelevant to the Prize. Why should they waste hundreds hours broadcasting reliable (in the sense of "accurately received" ) "lies" just to deceive or mislead the whole world and make me get up at 3 a.m. every first and second Monday in October? They must have better things to do than that! Why not let me sleep in till 10 a.m.? Unless it's to contact a "winner-designate," it doesn't make any sense! October 11, 2007 (1:29pm): This line of reasoning is also consistent with known Nobel rules and precedents. (supra)

Endnotes

1. From Italian street urchin to Nobel fame, TORONTO STAR, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2007, A4

2. Clicking on this hotlink in the pdf of this document gets you to that Nobel Prize page. This paragraph is quoted from Cheng, KC, 29 & 30 March 2007 Contract, Appendix A.

3. This is a part of my April 4, 2007 letter to Mr.. . ., LL.B.

4. From the following incomplete list of volumes of books and video sets I have created on this topic, we can see that it did take me years to complete the whole set on the mind.

Cheng, K.C., The Electromagnetism of Memory, Mentation and Behaviour. Volume 1. Unpublished manuscript. Winnipeg, Canada: KC Cheng Press, 1976.

Cheng, K.C., The Electromagnetism of Memory, Mentation and Behaviour. Volume 2. Unpublished manuscript. Brockville, Canada: KC Cheng Press,1988.

Cheng, K.C., The Electromagnetism of Memory, Mentation and Behaviour. Volumes 3-19. Unpublished manuscript. Toronto: KC Cheng Press, 1992-96.

Cheng, K.C., Mystery of the Mind. Toronto: K. C. Cheng Press, 1998 b.

Cheng, K.C., The Electromagnetism of Memory, Intelligence and Mind. A video set (132 hours). Toronto: KC Cheng Press,1999.

Cheng, K.C., The Neurophysics of Telepathy. A video. Shenzhen, China: KC Cheng Press, 2001a.

Cheng, K.C., N Lecture 2000: Colour Perception. A video. Shenzhen: KC Cheng Press, 2001b.

Cheng, K.C., N Lecture 2001: The Mind in Formation. The Mind of All Creatures. A video. Shenzhen: KC Cheng Press, 2001c.

Cheng, K.C., Volition, 2002.

Cheng, K.C., Emotions: a Cortical Repertoire, February 14, 2003 (10:38pm)~January 2007.

5. Cheng, KC, 29 & 30 March 2007 Contract, Appendix A.

6. This is a part of my April 4, 2007 letter to Mr. . . ., LL.B.

7. Cheng, K.C., March 29, 2007 letter to P . . .: March 29, 2007 Contract.

8.

9. The preceding is all from my A few Nobel Rules and Precedents.

10.

11.The preceding paragraph is slightly revised from my 9~11 Oct 2007 letter to Canada's . . ., and the following to the end is directly taken from the same letter with little editing.