 There was a similar late medieval debate on intentionality, that is, the relation between mental states and their objects. It is no surprise, given Ockham’s arguments about species, that he took an externalist line on these, too: he poses the question by asking whether, if an angel saw the contents of my mind when I was thinking about some singular object, could the angel (supposing that it did not know about anything external to my mind) tell which object I was thinking about? Ockham answered no: and this thought experiment seems to show that my mental state (i.e.\ my thinking of this particular object) is not determined by the contents of my mind alone (Panaccio 2010, pp. 242f., William of Ockham 1981, pp. 378f.). This is clearly some sort 	of externalist position, but describing this position exactly has proved to be surprisingly difficult (Panaccio 2010, Normore 2010, Brower-Toland 2007). Correspondingly although many medieval thinkers were sympathetic to arguments of this sort, the details of the positions they adopted were by no means uniform. For example, followers of Scotus, such as Francis of Meyronnes, held positions on intentionality which were intricate, were relational in some sense, but were not straightforwardly externalist (Cesalli 2010). Debate on  these issues continues into our era, and has invited comparison with, for example, Sellars (1960): Sellars’ position, although interesting, does not seem (as he claims) to reproduce Aquinas’ position on  intentionality (King 2010). This only shows that there are a very large number of different accounts of intentionality, and that the medievals, even though they were surprisingly inventive in discovering them, did not manage to discover all of them.  