William James introduced the terms “hard determinism” and “soft determinism” in the 1880’s. Today his “soft determinism” is known as “compatibilism,” the self-contradictory idea that free is will is compatible with determinism.
James called this a “wretched subterfuge.” Immanuel Kant called it “word juggling.” Since much of philosophy today is juggling words, playing with their possible meanings, even redefining words to mean their very opposite, it is no surprise that we have a scandal in philosophy. For example, Daniel Dennett defines free will as moral responsibility.
Despite Dennett, most incompatibilists and determinists accept the traditional idea that determinism means the lack of moral responsiility.
Semicompatibilists are narrow incompatibilists who are agnostic about free will and determinism.
Hard incompatibilists think both free will and moral responsibility are not compatible with determinism. Illusionists are incompatibilists who say free will is an illusion.
The old incompatibilism explains freedom. It cannot explain the will. Hard incompatibilism denies both freedom and responsibility.
Only the “two-stage” Cogito model is genuine free will.
The Information Philosopher Blog 
How do you reconcile Benjamin Libet’s EEG experiments (readiness potential) et al, which detected a brain’s motor cortex response 300 milliseconds prior to a person being consciously aware of said response? Other similar experiments are Haynes (2011), and Fied & Mukamel (2011).
LikeLike
My basic response is that early rise in the readiness potential may only signal the generation of alternative possibilities for action. Only determinists think it must already be making the decision.
Please check out my Libet page.
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/libet/
LikeLike