In press: In J. Schulkin (ed.), Action, Perception and the Brain. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan. Neo-pragmatism and enactive intentionality 1 Shaun Gallagher Philosophy and Cognitive Sciences Institute for Simulation and Training University of Central Florida (USA) School of Humanities University of Hertfordshire (UK) Katsunori Miyahara History and Philosophy of Science The University of Tokyo Research Fellow (DC1) Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Enactive approaches in cognitive science propose that perception, and more generally cognitive experience, are strongly mediated by embodied (sensory-motor) processes, and that our primary experience of the world is action-oriented or pragmatic (Noë 2004; Thompson 2007; Varela et al. 1991). Extended mind theorists propose that cognition supervenes on embodied and environmental processes such as gestures and the use of various technologies (Clark 2008; Clark and Chalmers 1998; Menary 2010). Both enactive and extended conceptions of cognition suggest that the mind is not “in the head” – that cognitive processes are distributed over brain, body and environment – but they also differ on a number of issues. Extended mind theorists defend a functionalist account of cognition and downplay the role of the body (e.g., Clark 2008), and they argue that cognition and action can involve mental representations (e.g., Clark 1997; Clark and Grush 1999; Rowlands 2006; Wheeler 2005). In contrast, enactive theorists argue for radical embodiment (e.g., Thompson and Varela 2001) and defend an anti- representationlist view (e.g., Gallagher 2008b; Hutto, in press; Thompson 2007). There are also debates about how to define the boundaries, or lack of boundaries, involved in cognitive processes (e.g., Di Paolo 2009; Wheeler 2008). In this chapter we do not propose to resolve all of these issues. Rather, we intend to address the following question: Can enactive and extended conceptions of the mind agree on a model of intentionality? We explore several conceptions of intentionality in order to ask which conception of intentionality best supports the new concept of mind implied by both the enactive and the extended views. We argue (1) that although both enactive and extended views champion a non-Cartesian, non-internalist conception of mind, we only start to see what this conception of mind is when we adopt an enactivist conception of intentionality; (2) only by adopting this model of intentionality will the 1 Miyahara’s work on this paper was supported by a Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Research Fellowship for Young Scientists.