Here is the announcement from the BQFW homepage:
Eddy Nahmias has won a Big Questions in Free Will essay prize for his article, “Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will?”, published in the New York Times (online Opinion section in The Stone series) on Nov. 13, 2011.
Congratulations! Hooray for us as well. The next round is on Eddy!
Wonderful!!! Congrats Eddy!
Posted by: Manuel "Play That Funky Music" Vargas | 12/07/2011 at 08:31 AM
No surprise; that was a good essay!
Posted by: R. Clarke | 12/07/2011 at 10:12 AM
Well deserved Eddy!
Posted by: Chris Franklin | 12/07/2011 at 10:38 AM
I'd definitely like to see more excellent submissions like Eddy's. Maybe if I had "middle names" like Manuel's, people would be more excited about sending me such articles. And maybe reminding you that prize winners get $3000 would help.
Posted by: Al Mele | 12/07/2011 at 03:35 PM
Excellent article, Eddy, and congratulations!
Posted by: John Fischer | 12/07/2011 at 10:02 PM
Eddy--so well deserved--you put the best foot forward repesenting contemporary FW inquiry in the empirical realm.
Posted by: V. Alan White | 12/07/2011 at 10:58 PM
I'm sure it was the best entry. I'm pretty sure it was the best possible entry (the best essay published on the topic). But don't start thinking you *deserved* to win, Eddy.
Posted by: Neil | 12/08/2011 at 06:00 AM
OK, enough already--I will buy the next round! But I really can't handle Tamler using the word "slurp-fest" again. I really do appreciate the kind words (and the prize).
I can't remember, have we already discussed here this question (that Neil reminds us of): Is there supposed to be some significant difference between (1) a criminal *deserving* punishment because he knowingly and (compatibilist) freely broke the law (think Bernie Madoff) and (2) an athlete or musician *deserving* to win the competition because she worked hard and (compatibilist) freely performed well?
Cases like (2) just seem like they are not going to become inappropriate because we lack libertarian free will (or self-creation); rather, when we say someone deserves what they get in these cases, we seem to be describing an apt reward for an agent effectively exercising her capacities (or whatever--but nothing metaphysically demanding). But if that's the case, then it looks like deserving punishment (in cases like 1) is either apt or it involves a different use of "deserving" with different conditions of satisfaction (seemingly more metaphysically significant than Wolf's suggested asymmetry).
OK, if we can establish that we haven't already discussed this question, maybe I'll write up a post--we need something more substantial at the blog than ... slurp-fests.
Posted by: Eddy Nahmias | 12/08/2011 at 07:59 AM
Congrats, Eddy. It's an excellent article. Contra Neil, I encourage you to at least think you deserve it.
Posted by: Andrei A. Buckareff | 12/08/2011 at 08:07 AM
Way to go, Eddy!
Posted by: Joe Campbell | 12/11/2011 at 12:13 PM
One last slurp--congrats Eddy!
Posted by: Tamler Sommers | 12/17/2011 at 01:34 PM