This article is a critical approach to the main ideas of the paper "The Extended Mind", published by Clark and Chamers and to some further comments on it. It begins by highlighting the differences between Otto and Inga (Otto's beliefs differ from those of Inga) that tend to cancel the extended mind thesis, in the version supported by the authors, the analysis of these differences leading us to the conclusion of a difference in cognitive status e between information " from the brain " and information of " brain externalization". The journal is a tool, the understanding of the role that it plays in the life of Otto being dependent on the indication of the place of utensils in the world. Further, the fact that in case of Inga information is directly accessible while in the case of Otto it can be accessed only through mediation generates significant differences in terms of convictions, including differences in the widely held belief that the thesis of the reality of the world constitutes. Reducing the mind to skin and skull is wrong, the authors being right about the fundamental thesis of the article. We agree with the thesis of the extension of the mind but we show that not all arguments in " The Extended Mind" are appropriate to the assertion, threatening to lead research in the wrong direction. We suggest that Clark and Chalmers miss a necessary ontological difference between the mind and utensils that can realize the nature and limits of mind extension. The problem could be caused by the reductionist perspective on consciousness, to which the authors are tributary. To speak of an extended mind, we must triangulate a " where?" of the mind, to identify a place from which it extends (or is extended). The analogy with the computer is one of the ways in which we show a slip to " a form of ubiquity of mind" and indicate its strong connection with society. We believe that this relationship may be approached in a more appropriate way by its appeal to consciousness. Not the world is part of the cognitive processes, but we give such use to it by the very way in which we build it. From this perspective the term of extended consciousness is more appropriate than that of extended mind. The " Paradox" extended mind suggests the dependence of the understanding of the mind on the choice of the manner in which to define it. In this respect, the definition of the mind can be considered the symbol of one or other of the ways of understanding the world.
