Genady

I think so, too. I think there is. These are components of what I call, social effect: Intended by whom? I think, the "intended" is not necessary or sufficient. Instead it can just say, "human-made thing that engages an audience ..."

Art with the capital A as oppose to art in, e.g. "arts and crafts". Perhaps, I used a wrong word, society. What I try to say is that it is determined socially if a piece is Art or not. The most clear determination is when it is exhibited as Art. IOW, it is not determined by an artist or by a piece, but by its social effect.

No. It meant to say, that it is determined by society. You mean Art with the capital A, right?

I do. It is the stuff in art museums and alike.

The starting point for consideration is evidence. Not a proof or use.

I think you are. I don't know why it'd be supposed so. I don't think it makes sense. P.S. Posted before seeing your addition.

Regarding the diagnosis, I suggest age related dementia. Quite reasonable, I think.

Wouldn't this heat be generated in the crust rather than in the core?

Maybe it doesn't want a paradise on earth. Maybe it'd be too boring to it. Maybe it likes the entertainment, all the comedy and all the drama...

As TheVat says, it is unlikely that the Moon heats the Earth's core. However, it can have other, namely mechanical effects on it. For example, since the core is liquid and inhomogeneous, the Moon might affect movements in it, which in turn might cause changes in the Earth's geomagnetic and gravitational fields.

If you have discovered a new life form, you can contact a biology department in a university or a museum of natural history. I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem finding a co-author for the publication.

Yes, I know all this. I've pointed to it because the OP's question is specific about reproduction, and is placed in the Biology forum.

This case is the only one that counts as reproduction, isn't it? It might be biological. E.g. it is so in lions, where a male kills other male's offspring to make room for his own..

So, the idea is not new, but you want to change the diagnosis.

Well, although you've never heard of it, the idea is not new. For example, here is an article from 20+ years ago and it refers to older sources: God Diagnosed With Bipolar Disorder (theonion.com)

This new paper suggests an interesting way of clarifying, unifying, and generalizing notions of entropy from Clausius, Boltzmann, and Shannon, using a new concept of Information Reference Frame with a corresponding "observer", analogous to reference frames, with Bobs and Alices in other areas of science: [2103.16913] Information form of the second law of thermodynamics (arxiv.org)

Successfully solving a problem that does not exist to start with. The solution is beautifully clear: "the mathematical reflection of the dialectical law of affirmation-negation for qualitatively opposite binary judgments about the nature of any object or process." "the "imaginary" unit i is a symbol for a qualitatively polar opposite essence (property, number, parameter) obeying to the polar opposite (“negative”) algebra of signs relative to the conventional (“positive”) algebra." In conclusion, "we believe that the word "imaginary" as not reflecting reality will eventually be removed from mathematics and physics, harmonizing the mathematical structures with the laws of the Universe, and thus expanding the horizons of knowledge."

This works both ways.

This is very curious, because most people I know, overwhelmingly love their lives.

Something to do with Facebook?

The distinction in this case is, that I don't claim it anymore. I'd say, I am more than atheist.

It is not a belief. It is my understanding what it means to be an atheist. I don't think there is a clear-cut definition of it. Just like there is no clear-cut definition of religion. If I am wrong and by an accepted definition atheism is narrower than I thought, then I would like to know what is a correct word to define my attitude. I don't care about words and don't want to redefine anything. P.S. ... unlike the aforementioned Catholic ...

IMO, atheism is not restricted to not believing in a god, but also includes not believing in god-like humans... bla-bla. It includes not believing in a supernatural.

Is karma a natural phenomenon?

Sure. Another limitation is that if an original cloud is too large, it would break and make several smaller stars rather than one large star.