My approach to question led me to formulate ideas that dovetails that of Bergson, Bohm, Robbins and even Da Vinci. That is, there is a Elan Vitale (vital force) that is embedded in a holographic universe with memory that persists and at times coalesces into forms into physical substances.

Louis Kahn, a famous architect, spoke about light decaying into matter to create forms and shadow. While Da Vinci spike directly about this Bohm was less direct though his theory revolve around a holographic Implicate and Explicate Universe in which is embedded consciousness. Stephen Robbins had a series of videos on YouTube where he sets forth his interpretation of these theories.

Is an emergent property a preexisting disposition or something completely new? — Andrew4Handel

For example, when you put certain ingredients together in one and the same glass they might begin to interact with each other so that a new property emerges, which you might find more tasty than the separate ingredients. It's a matter of physics and biology. Any physical object or property is predisposed to have physical causes and effects...

It seems that from a biological/scientific viewpoint humans are an organism made up of preexisting matter that has formed a new individual functional existence with possibly emergent properties. — Andrew4Handel

This basically, but I don't buy the idea of "emergent properties" beyond the fact that matter in particular dynamic structures has properties that things do not have in different subsets of that matter in different dynamic structures.

Consciousness etc. is a way that our brains work.

From the human perspective I think Heidegger has it right. We are thrown into life, I find myself suddenly amidst living, hurled here from nowhere and scrambling to work out what's what and what's going on. Like a character from Beckett who finds themselves bewilderingly on a stage.

For example, when you put certain ingredients together in one and the same glass they might begin to interact with each other so that a new property emerges, which you might find more tasty than the separate ingredients. It's a matter of physics and biology. Any physical object or property is predisposed to have physical causes and effects... — jkop

It seems to me that things could not arise if reality did not have the appropriate dispositions but then these dispositions seem implausible especially consciousness and related mental things.

If a substance didn't have a disposition then it would seem there was no way for something new to arise from it. For instance say that there were only two sounds the musical notes C and D then Handel's Messiah couldn't have been written. Or if a planet only had a few elements on it life couldn't arise.

But science popularisers seem to be postulating a picture of increasing complexity from simplicity so that we only have to invoke some simple underlying rules....although now we have the multiverse idea and also increasing complexity has been seen at odds with entropy.

It seems puzzling to me how something could come to exist either from nothing, or come to exist from something without the appropriate dispositions. Maybe everything has always existed.

In my own life I think my earliest memory is of sitting on a potty at around two yrs old. That is my first conscious memory but it is not like I suddenly came into existence then rather there is a period of ambiguity and the unknown prior to then. I am puzzled about how we transition from never having been a conscious entity to personal awareness. Our bodies have physical antecedents such as genetics and reused matter but our consciousness doesn't have that kind of continuous chain of transformations.

The reason I raised this issue is because I have argued elsewhere that we are forced into existence by our parents.

The reason I raised this issue is because I have argued elsewhere that we are forced into existence by our parents. — Andrew4Handel

Our parents cause us to exist. To feel one is 'forced into' something is an attitude, not a statement of fact. I think to this extent I am a Stoic; I note that they caused me to exist, I note that I had no influence on this and can have no influence now or in the future and I move on.

It might give me cause to feel certain emotions towards my parents, and to have a certain attitude in my turn towards parenthood. These all matter, but they don't matter that much to me. I grasp that they matter to people of your opinion, but to me it seems a narcissistic preoccupation to place at the centre of one's philosophy. There's plenty of stuff in my world that matters to me which I would like to act upon, so I try to act upon those matters.

The reason I raised this issue is because I have argued elsewhere that we are forced into existence by our parents. — Andrew4Handel

There's no you to be forced into anything prior to your conception, at least (and I'd say prior to the the development of minimal sentience, which is posterior to conception).

Many spiritual cultures take the opposing view that the vital spiritual force chooses the parents prior to coming into existence. A more fair point of view.

Being forced into existence is not the same as being forced to do something. It is a case of going from a state of nonexistence to a state of existence. If you already existed you couldn't be forced into existence.

I mentioned that on one theory we are made of preexisting matter however our consciousness is unique. In one sense aspects of our body preexisted us such as DNA and matter but these were shaped into a new person. Like how a potter turns clay into a vase.

In the case of creating a new human you are somehow endowing matter with new consciousness. It is an act of force that is not necessary but based on a parents will unless through rape or carelessness.

How individual consciousness arises puzzles me and I fear like Rich suggests may be we chose this person we are (on a dualist view of mind body) because it is bizarre how we become conscious of being just this one person seeing all of reality through our subjective consciousness.

If we didn't chose to be this person somehow we became conscious of being and fated to be this person.

I don't know how we could coherently chose our parents.

I have never had children so no one could choose me as a parent. So If noone has procreational sex then "souls" couldn't access this world.

I think even on on a completely physicalist or materialist/scientific world view it is in the parents hands to create new people and is not inevitable or determined.

So I think our philosophical questions including about existence should be centred around this. I would only have child if I knew the meaning of life and not thrust them into a confusing and dangerous reality. I feel the pursuit of Objectivity has devalued human agency

If you already existed you couldn't be forced into existence. — Andrew4Handel

You need to already exist to be forced to do something. Hence you're not forced into existence.

Being forced into existence isn't being forced to do some it is the whole process of starting to exist.

How do things come into existence?

Does everything already exist? If not then new things come into existence. But how? In science it would be through physical forces.
........
Being forced to exist would be, to be prevented from committing suicide, but being forced into existence is going from a state on nonexistence into existence.

The status of non existence for humans is both thr status of not existing as an individual body and not existing as a consciousness. It is an act of force by deliberately or careless fertilisation and egg that forces us to start to exist.

Yours appears to be a semantic quibble.

Otherwise how could anything come to exist if there was no force? A builder has to use force to turn bricks and wood into a house. We can't create ourselves but our parents can create us.

Sometimes the process of creating us is very purposeful. For example with fertility treatment where someone wants a child and the process is done with comprehensive intervention where the doctor intelligently manipulates the gametes towards a fertilisation and the parents desires are very explicit.

So it is the opposite of a biological accident but a serious intention to make someone else exist (on behalf of the parents desires).

I think the key route to nihilism is our parents creating us for no good reason leaving us with lots of unresolved issues. When you catch the bus from A to B you usually have a sense of purpose because it is a journey that you know why your on. Life isn't like that.

Does everything already exist? If not then new things come into existence. But how? In science it would be through physical forces. — Andrew4Handel

"Forced to exist" in the context you were using it has a connotation of being forced to do something against one's will, especially because you're hoping that it has some rhetorical force with respect to ethics. So talking about physical forces is an equivocation.

I am saying force into and not forced to.

We can't chose to come into existence.

I think creating children raises ethical issues indeed. The ethical issues might arise from lack of consent or any number of other things. When you create a child they will have their own desires and will, and you know that before you create them. So I don't see how you can create a person without risking compromising their future will, or create a child in his or her own interest.

When the child comes to exist they are subject to a lot of coercion. It is not like when you create a child they can immediately assess life and gently opt out. It is usually the case that a child will be indoctrinated to accept life and is unlikely to contemplate suicide until after a prolonged period of suffering. So there is a lot of force, especially in my case where it wasn't until adulthood that I could evaluate life after intimidating religious indoctrination.

The important thing is to recognise the causal implication of creating a child. Humans can predict outcomes and possess extensive knowledge on reality which they can reflect on. So we know about a whole range of outcomes to having a child and can reflect. It is unlikely anyway could say that they thought X would not happen. We know our child will die. We know someone like Hitler had parents (The absurd extreme outcome) We know our child will like be sentient and have their own desires.

This is not an allegation we could level at other procreating species.

I am saying force into and not forced to. — Andrew4Handel

That doesn't make the difference though. You said: "The reason I raised this issue is because I have argued elsewhere that we are forced into existence by our parents."

You're saying that hoping that it will have the same rhetorical impact on someone that "Joe was forced into pulling the trigger of the gun and killing Billy" would have. You're not phrasing it that way figuring that people will read it as akin to, "Particle B moved with the velocity it did because of a force acted upon it by particle A." The latter has no normative connotation for most folks, whereas the former does.

The point is to correctly describe what happened. That our parents are responsible for us existing. That it wasn't inevitable that we were created.

I don't think philosophy can be coherent if it ignores the reality of how we came to exist in the first place which has serious ramifications.

I think philosophical questions are forced on us. I don't think we philosophise out of curiosity or for entertainment.

There is a specific reason why we are here and as creatures who can reason and reflect why would that act of creating an apparently new sentience be a side issue?

My strong approach to this question would be, forever and always, that we can never be made up of what is defined by mathematics. Sciences, such as physics, that defines most of the world's secrets are based mostly upon math. But how can we judge the existence of time, space and ourselves on merely things that don't exist themselves. What are these things? Numbers! Numbers do not exist, therefore basing the whole idea of our existence along with space, time and other things must also not exist. Moreover, there must be some other logical way that we could exist. Or maybe not one atall.

Let's go on verified knowledge (and throw speculation out the window) and what the resulting current evidence says:

The universe is a chaos system - everything that exists has come together by pure chance. Our universe is powered by the 'molecular storm' - which is like dust kicked-up by the Big Bang, which is still looking for a place to rest (on physicist said that life was 'electrons looking for a place to rest', referring to the 'molecular storm') (but he did not address 'emergence' of higher systems).

So the 'emergence' of higher systems came about by pure chance. There is another 'higher force' involved - that of molecular self-assembly (consider the snowflake) - meaning that we 'came together' through the force of molecular self-assembly, partly powered by the molecular storm, which is the underlying force behind biochemistry and cell functions.

Cells are an interesting issue - theory has it that the began as lipid vacuoles - the phenomenon where lipids spontaneously form 'bubbles' (which then became cell membranes). These 'bubbles' offered an 'internal environment' where the probability of the molecular interactions required for 'life' (for self-sustaining molecular machines - all created by chance, remember) increased, hence increasing the probability of self-perpetuation (which could not happen in an open pond - everything would disperse).

Through the forces of molecular self-assembly and chance, larger 'life-forms' occurred, and, by chance, some conglomerations of molecules, and later microbes and cells, chanced upon emergent functions which were successful at self-sustaining themselves (like a bureaucracy), which is what we are.

On the brain - initially there was no brain - all output reactions to sensory inputs were hard-wired. We still have them - they bypass our brains for the sake of speed - we call them 'instincts'. By chance, or by environmental pressures now, the first nascent 'brain' occurred, which offered more flexibility in responses, which proved to be useful in finding nutrients, and in survival.

Why do we have 'superior' brains over the rest of nature? No one knows, but chance environment played a role. Fish stuck to the sea, for example, and the theory is that with a more limited sense range, they had to rely more on quick instinct to avoid predators/find prey. One land, one could 'see' and 'sense' farther, allowing more time for 'contemplation', and hence more flexibility - meaning unpredictability, which contributed to survival (avoiding the guesses of predators).

Perhaps humans had a lot of idle time on their hands, and their minds began to wander away from purely animal concerns. Today, we can proactively seek-out as-yet undiscovered threats/benefits to life, and proactively develop/implement solutions in advance or as soon as possible - before an event occurs, and for the benefit of all of life.

CONCLUSION
We are here by chance. This is the universe that we have just awakened to. With what we know now, we must work toward perpetuating life (in hopes that some future higher consciousness will be able to 'recreate us' (with technology), addressing our 'life after death' and 'eternal life' hopes (though eternity renders 'eternal life' impossible - the best we can do is continue to exist - forever - and barring any unforeseen circumstances, which, given infinity, will always exist (meaning infinity prevents us from ever knowing 'everything' - meaning all threats to life).

Answered in wrong thread