The purpose of this paper is to depend the thesis of extended mind against the criticism raised by Adams and Aizawa. Clark and Chalmers suggest that when we perform cognitive activities with the help of external tools, those extracranial processes involved with those cognitive tools may also be regarded as a part of our mind or our cognitive processes. Contrary to this suggestion, Adams and Aizawa think that our cognitive capacities and processes are confined to our intracranial brain processes and what really happen are just causal interactions between our cognitive processes and non-cognitive external tools. The gist of their criticism is that the extended processes do not exhibit two distinct marks of cognitive. This paper argues that the extended mind thesis can successfully respond to this criticism.