Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assumption of will is unfounded, scientifically speaking. Your entire argument is philosophical, not scientific. The subjective experience of free will is in no way unrefutable proof that will is required for intelligence.
Do you love? Do you dance? Do you desire? Do you rage? Do you weep? Do you choose? Every moment of your existence you exert your will on the world. A denial of will is a denial of humanity. I want nothing of a science that would do such a thing.
In Computing the Mind by Shimon Edelman is a concept that I've come to agree with, which is at some point you need to take a leap of faith in matters such as consciousness, and I would say it extends to will as well (to me what you've described are facets of human consciousness). We take this leap of faith every time we interact with another human; we don't need them to prove they're conscious or beings with a will of their own, we just accept that they possess these things without a thought. If machines gain some form of sentience comparable to that of a human, we'll likely have to take that leap of faith ourselves.
That said, to claim that will is necessary for intelligence is a very human-centered point of view. Unless the goal is specifically to emulate human intelligence/consciousness (which is a goal for some but not all), "true" machine intelligence may not look anything like ours, and I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing.