what is the basic diff btn a dead man and a living man
Answers
basic difference is the heart of a dead man stops pumping blood and breathing stops while in an alive man both are these are happening.
stay blessed ☺
I'm very far from an expert, and I would like to know more about this subject than I currently do, but this is my current understanding (and actual experts should correct any gross mistakes below). First, here are various things that the word "dead" could mean, roughly in increasing order of deadness.
Meaning 1: . Legal death, as the name indicates, is a legal status, not a biological one. In particular, it is reversible; people can and have accidentally been declared legally dead, and those people can be "brought back to life" by reversing a legal decision. (Being legally dead is apparently a huge hassle.)
Meaning 2: . As far as I can tell, this is more or less synonymous with cardiac arrest. Clinical death is reversible; people can and have been clinically dead who were brought back to life.
Meaning 3: . I don't have a clear handle on exactly what this means, but it's worth pointing out that it is very different from the first two meanings above. Unlike Meaning 1, it is a biological and not a legal status, and unlike Meaning 2, it refers to the brain and not the heart. However, it is closely related to Meaning 1 in that, as I currently understand it, brain death is commonly used to declare legal death. Brain death may also be reversible () although it seems like this is controversial.
Meaning 4: . This means that the information in your brain that constitutes who you are has been destroyed. This is the notion of death that I think is most important going forward. In particular, information-theoretic death is irreversible; if the information has really been destroyed, then there's no way to bring it back. It seems quite likely to me that people can be brain dead without being information-theoretically dead. However, a brain-dead body that has been decaying for long enough is almost certainly information-theoretically dead as well. There's just no reason for the particular way your neurons are wired up to survive all that long after the brain stops working.
Before we go forward, I'd like to point out something important about words. Most words do not divide up the universe into clean-cut pieces. That is, there isn't a magical sorting algorithm that sorts all of the bodies in the world into a "dead" pile and a "living" pile. This is simply not how words like "dead" and "living" work in practice. If you'd like to learn more about how words work, I suggest reading .
What we really care about when we talk about whether a human is dead or alive is to what extent that human can meaningfully participate in human society now or to what extent that human can meaningfully participate in human society at some point in the future (people in comas don't satisfy the first criterion but they could satisfy the second). The word future in that second condition is very important; it highlights a point which is already implicit in the distinction I drew above between clinical death, brain death, and information-theoretic death, which is that the meaning of "dead" depends on a given level of medical technology.
("Dead" is in quotes to emphasize that I'm not strictly referring to any of the meanings above but to a more colloquial understanding of death.)
A human that might have been considered "dead" in the 15th century, in the sense that the level of medical technology was not sufficient in the 15th century to heal that human in such a way that it could later meaningfully participate in human society (Meaning 5?), might not be considered "dead" now. And a human that might be considered "dead" now might not be considered "dead" in the future. This is the basic argument motivating cryonics (). At this point, I can't do better than pointing you to that link and the resources therein.