Scene: Two philosophers sit across from each other.

One denies the will.
The other denies the possibility of denying it.

1. Setting the Stage

M:
Let’s get right to it.
What you’re calling “volition” is nothing more than cognition—
a biological, computational process evolved for social navigation.
There is no separate spiritual domain.
You’re asserting metaphysics where evolution already gives us an explanation.

T:
And I’m saying cognition cannot do the work you’re assigning to it.
You are loading volitional functions into “cognition” without demonstrating that cognition can perform them.
That’s not reduction, it’s rebranding.

2. The Materialist Asserts the Collapse

M:
Look, the human brain generates:

• decision-making,
• evaluation,
• preference,
• belief revision,
• planning.

These are all cognitive functions.
There is no reason to carve them into a special, mystical category.

T:
But to call everything “cognitive” is not an explanation.
It’s an erasure of distinctions.

If I call:

• gravity “energy,”
• electricity “energy,”
• magnetism “energy,”

I haven’t explained gravity.
I’ve only renamed it.

You have asserted that will = cognition without proving that cognition can perform the unique operations volition performs.

3. The First UPB Strike: Preconditions of Argument

T:
Let me ask you directly:

Does cognition, acting mechanistically, have the ability to:

1. Choose between competing interpretations?
2. Commit to a proposition because it is true?
3. Revise beliefs based on better arguments?
4. Distinguish between valid and invalid reasoning?
5. Obligate itself to norms of logic?

M:
Yes.
Those are emergent cognitive functions.

T:
Then you’ve smuggled volition into cognition.

Those operations require:

• normativity (“ought”),
• intentional alignment with truth,
• the ability to accept or reject reasons,
• a subject capable of assent.

These are not computational.
These are volitional.

You have renamed volition, but you have not eliminated it.

4. The Materialist Pushes Back

M:
You keep insisting on a ghostly distinction.
The brain makes decisions.
That’s cognition.
There’s no separate metaphysical agent.

T:
Decisions can be modeled computationally.
But they cannot be grounded computationally.

A computational system can:

• output a conclusion,
• alter state based on input,
• adjust probabilities.

But it cannot:

• recognize truth,
• commit to truth,
• be obligated by truth.

These capacities belong to volition.

If cognition could do all this, every deterministic system would be capable of rationality.

Is your thermostat rational?

Is your Roomba obligated to believe its sensors?

Is an AI choosing the correct answer because it is true?

If cognition = computation, then truth disappears.

5. Materialist Retreat to Evolution

M:
Evolution explains why we behave as if truth matters.
Thinking that we’re choosing is an illusion beneficial for survival.

T:
Then your argument is an illusion beneficial for survival.
Not an appeal to truth.

If you deny volition and truth, and rely solely on evolutionary behavior, then:

• arguments are not attempts to persuade,
• beliefs are not evaluated,
• conclusions are not chosen,
• truth is irrelevant.

Your worldview destroys the category of “argument.”

This is UPB’s central rule:

A theory that eliminates the preconditions of rational discourse invalidates itself.

If truth is an illusion, your claim is also an illusion.

If reasoning is a survival mechanism, not a truth mechanism,
then you have no basis to claim your worldview is correct.

You’ve weaponized evolution against yourself.

6. The Cognition Gambit

M:
No, you misunderstand.
Cognition includes truth-recognition.
Cognition includes decision-making.

I’m just saying we don’t need a separate “volition” to explain them.

T:
You have renamed volition as part of cognition, but you haven’t shown:

• how computation generates obligation,
• how neurons produce normativity,
• how biology yields truth-recognition,
• how physical processes generate selfhood.

You keep using volitional vocabulary—
“includes,” “recognizes,” “decides,” “chooses”—
all while denying the existence of volition.

That is a category error.

**7. The Second UPB Strike:

If cognition is deterministic, all disagreement is meaningless**

T:
Let’s assume you’re right:

• cognition = deterministic computation
• volition = illusion
• arguments are computational outputs

Then:

• you cannot persuade me
• I cannot oppose you
• disagreement is just two machines producing different outputs
• no one is right or wrong
• truth does not apply
• arguments cannot be evaluated

Thus:

By collapsing volition into cognition, you eliminate the possibility of argument.

Your position is not wrong.
It is unintelligible.

8. The Final Blow

T:
Here is the unavoidable consequence:

If cognition contains volition, then volition exists.
If cognition does not contain volition, then argument is impossible.

Choose:

A. Volition is real.

Then:

• Truth exists.
• Rationality exists.
• Moral agency exists.
• The triadic model stands.
• Uploading cannot preserve identity.

B. Volition is not real.

Then:

• No argument is meaningful.
• No belief is chosen.
• No worldview can claim truth.
• Materialism cannot be defended.
• You cannot say your position is correct.

You cannot deny volition
without denying the possibility of denying it.

9. Materialist Silence

M:
…
Let me think.

T:
Exactly.
Thinking presupposes the very thing you deny.

10. Closing Line

T:
Volition is not a metaphysical luxury.
It is the condition of all rationality.
Deny it, and you lose the right to say anything—
including your denial.> Context:

Molyneux’s Universally Preferable Behavior (UPB) argues that any moral or rational claim that destroys the conditions required for making a claim is self-contradictory.

Here, the same structure is used to show:
Denying the self or volition destroys the possibility of argument, truth, and rationality.

Characters

Materialist (M)

Atheistic, computationalist, denies volition. Modeled after the argumentative cadence of Stefan Molyneux—direct, incisive, absolutist when necessary.

Triadic Thinker (T)

Advocates the sensation–intellect–volition ontology, showing that selfhood and volition are logically necessary for rational discourse.

1. The Materialist Position

M:
Let’s get to the point. There is no “volition.”
There is no “self.”
The brain generates behavior through deterministic biological processes.
Intention, meaning, choice—these are illusions.
An uploaded mind is just as real as a biological mind, because both are computational patterns.

Humans are machines.
Machines can be copied.
Therefore, uploading preserves identity.

There is no ghost. No spirit. No mysterious “will.”

2. The Triadic Challenge Begins (Using UPB Structure)

T:
All right. Let’s test your position using your own standards.

You are making:

• a claim,
• intending it to be true,
• expecting me to choose whether to accept or reject it.

Yet you claim:

• there is no choice,
• no intention,
• no truth beyond neurochemical patterns.

Your argument invalidates the possibility of argument.

Let’s unpack it UPB-style.

3. UPB Framework Applied: The Preconditions of Argument

T:
For any argument to be valid, the following must exist:

1. A self who makes the argument
2. Another self capable of understanding it
3. Volition—the ability to choose between alternatives
4. Truth as a standard
5. Intellect—the capacity to reason
6. Sensation—the grounding of inputs

You deny 1 and 3 outright.
Once those go, 2, 4, and 5 collapse.

Your claim destroys the necessary conditions for its own existence.

4. Molyneux-Style Cross-Examination

T:
Let me ask:

• If there is no self, who is making the argument?
• If there is no volition, why are you trying to persuade me?
• If all positions are deterministic outputs, what makes your output better than mine?
• If reasoning is neural machinery, why trust its results?
• If truth is an illusion, why argue at all?

You cannot say:

“Volition is an illusion—
and you should freely choose to agree with me.”

That is a category contradiction.

Your argument is self-demolishing.

5. The Materialist Attempts to Salvage His Position

M:
I’m not saying you “should” believe me.
I’m saying this is what the evidence shows.
Brains cause thoughts.
Computers can replicate patterns.
Therefore, consciousness and identity are computable.

6. The UPB Counter (Logical Necessity of Volition)

T:
Evidence requires:

• perception (sensation)
• interpretation (intellect)
• evaluation (volition)

You can have the first two mechanistically.
But evaluation—“this evidence is stronger than that evidence”—
requires a will capable of aligning with truth.

Without volition, “interpretation” becomes:

• a deterministic cascade,
• not a rational act.

Thus your statement reduces to:

“My brain made me say this.”

But if your brain made you say it, then no claim about truth is possible, because truth presupposes free assent to reality.

Your position therefore claims:

1. All statements are causally determined.
2. Determined statements cannot be judged as true or false.
3. Therefore, your own statement cannot be judged as true.

Self-invalidating.

7. The Triadic Reconstruction (Showing Volition is Required)

T:
Let’s examine your ontology inside the triadic model.

• Sensation: You accept
• Intellect: You accept (as computation)
• Volition: You deny

By doing so, you collapse the human into an AI-like entity.

But here is the problem:

**If humans are AI-like entities,

then argument = output,
truth = output,
reason = output,
and persuasion = meaningless.**

No argument can claim to be better or more true.
All are mechanistic byproducts, not rational acts.

Therefore, your attempt to “argue” loses coherence.

You are not presenting a truth.
You are executing a function.

8. The Atheist Cornered (UPB Structure Forces Concession)

T:
You have two choices, logically:

Option 1: Accept volition

Then:

• arguments have meaning
• truth exists
• identity persists
• an uploaded machine cannot possess personhood

OR:

Option 2: Deny volition

Then:

• no argument is meaningful
• no truth claim is defensible
• no moral claim is possible
• no identity exists
• uploading produces no continuation of the self
• your own argument dismantles itself

Your worldview forces you to pick between:

• a meaningful universe,
  or
• an unintelligible one.

9. The UPB Summary

Any argument denying volition denies the possibility of argument.

Any argument denying the self destroys its own speaker.

Any claim that a transhumanist upload “preserves identity” assumes identity exists—
which atheistic materialism cannot ground.

Thus:

The triadic model is not spiritual fluff;
it is a logical necessity for rational discourse.

10. Final Statement in Molyneux Cadence

T:
If your worldview cannot justify:

• the self
• choice
• truth
• reason
• moral agency

…then it cannot justify you.

Materialism gives you a universe where no one is home.
Transhumanism gives you a machine wearing your face.

The triadic ontology gives you:

• a self,
• a will,
• a mind,
• a body,
• and an identity that cannot be uploaded or simulated.

The universe where volition does not exist is not false—it is unintelligible.

Only the universe where volition exists
can contain
you.