We introduce a distinction between cortical dominance andcortical deference, and apply it to various examples ofneural plasticity in which input is rerouted intermodally orintramodally to nonstandard cortical targets. In some cases butnot others, cortical activity `defers’ to the nonstandard sourcesof input. We ask why, consider some possible explanations, andpropose a dynamic sensorimotor hypothesis. We believe that thisdistinction is important and worthy of further study, bothphilosophical and empirical, whether or not our hypothesis turnsout to be correct. In particular, the question of how the distinction should be explained is linked to explanatory gapissues for consciousness. Comparative and absolute explanatorygaps should be distinguished: why does neural activity in aparticular area of cortex have this qualitative expressionrather than that, and why does it have any qualitativeexpression at all? We use the dominance/deference distinction toaddress the comparative gaps, both intermodal and intramodal (notthe absolute gap). We do so not by inward scrutiny but rather by expanding our gaze to include relations between brain, body and environment.

Key words: consciousness, cortical deference, cortical dominance, dynamic sensorimotor contingencies, explanatory gaps, neural plasticity, perceptual adaptation, phantom limbs, synaesthesia.

The transparency of perceptual experience has been invoked in support of many views about perception. I argue that it supports a form of enactivism – the view that capacities for perceptual experience and for intentional agency are essentially interdependent. I clarify the perceptual phenomenon at issue, and argue that enactivists should expect to find a parallel instance of transparency in our agentive experience, and that the two forms of transparency are constitutively interdependent (Section 1). I then argue that i) we do indeed find such parallels: the way in which an action is directed towards its goal through our bodily movements parallels the way in which an experience is directed towards its object through our perceptual sensation (Section 2), and ii) reflecting on sensorimotor skills shows why the two instances of transparency are constitutively interdependent (Section 3). Section 4 gives reasons for generalizing beyond the cases considered so far by applying the enactive view to Kohler’s landmark studies of perceptual adaptation. The final section clarifies the form of enactivism to which the previous sections point. The view that emerges is one whereby our perceptual and practical skills are interrelated aspects of a single capacity to have one’s mind intentionally directed upon the world. The transparency of experience, on this view, is achieved in virtue of our capacities as agents as much as it is given in virtue of our capacities as perceivers.