Minds and Machines

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 1–19

On Communication and Computation

  • Paul Bohan Broderick


Comparing technical notions of communication and computation leads to a surprising result, these notions are often not conceptually distinguishable. This paper will show how the two notions may fail to be clearly distinguished from each other. The most famous models of computation and communication, Turing Machines and (Shannon-style) information sources, are considered. The most significant difference lies in the types of state-transitions allowed in each sort of model. This difference does not correspond to the difference that would be expected after considering the ordinary usage of these terms. However, the natural usage of these terms are surprisingly difficult to distinguish from each other. The two notions may be kept distinct if computation is limited to actions within a system and communications is an interaction between a system and its environment. Unfortunately, this decision requires giving up much of the nuance associated with natural language versions of these important terms.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abelson, H., Sussman, G. and Sussman, J. (1996), Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, Second Edition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Boolos, G. and Jeffrey, R. (1980), Computability and Logic, Second Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bruce, S. (1996), Applied Crytography, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Carnap, R. and Bar-Hillel, Y. (1964), ‘An Outline of Semantic Information’, in Language and Information, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 221–274.Google Scholar
  5. Cartwright, N. (1981), ‘The Reality of Causes in a World of Instrumental Laws’, PSA 2, pp. 38–48.Google Scholar
  6. Cartwright, N. (1999), ‘Causal Diversity and the Markov Condition’, Synthese 121, pp. 3–27.Google Scholar
  7. Chalmers, D. (1996), ‘Does A Rock Inplement Every Finite-State Automation?’ Synthese 108, pp. 309–333.Google Scholar
  8. Curry, H. (1977), Foundations of Mathematical Logic, Dover.Google Scholar
  9. Fetzer, J. (1994), ‘Mental Algorithms Are Minds Computational Systems?’ Pragmatics & Cognition 2(2), pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
  10. Floridi, L. (2001), ‘What Is the Philosophy of Information?’ Metaphilosophy 33(1/2), pp. 123–45. Also available at http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~floridi/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
  11. Haugeland, J. (1998), ‘Analog and Analog’, in Having Thought: Essays in the Metaphysics of Mind, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hopcroft, J., Motwani, R. and Ullman, J. (2001), Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and computation, Second Edition, Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  13. Isaacson, E. and Madsen, R. (1976) Markov Chains: Theoory and Application, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  14. Kleene, S. (1964), ‘General Recursive Functions of Natural Numbers’, in M. Davis, ed., The Undecidable, New York: Raven Press, pp. 237–252.Google Scholar
  15. Knuth, D. (1997), The Art of Computer Programming, 3rd Editon, Volume 1, Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  16. Putnam, H. (1988), Representation and Reality, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Salmon, W. (1998), ‘Probablistic Causation’, in Causality and Explanation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 208–232.Google Scholar
  18. Searle, J. (1980), ‘Minds, Brains and Programs’, Behavorial and Brain Sciences 3, pp. 417–457.Google Scholar
  19. Shannon, C. and Weaver, W. (1949), The Mathematical Theory of Communication, Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  20. Turing, A. (1945), ‘Proposals for Development in the Mathematics Department of an Automatic Computing Engine’, in Mechanical Intelligence, Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  21. Winograd, T., and Flores, F. (1986), Understanding Computers and Cognition, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Bohan Broderick
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyKent State UniversityKentUSA

Personalised recommendations