I agree. I don't need to postulate neither that everything is consciousness, nor that some world opaque to consciousness exists. I simply accept the given fact that whatever I know, I know it in some form of consciousness. I'm under no illusion that everything that exists is to be found in my consciousness as it is in this moment. But to place limits on what may enter my consciousness at some other time is completely arbitrary decision.
The point is that I gain nothing if I artificially invent some impenetrable boundary between consciousness and the world-in-itself. Think about it. In what way exactly this boundary is needed for any of the scientific facts that we all know and love? The simple fact is that this boundary doesn't add anything to our knowledge. Actually, it only dogmatically restricts what is possible and what is impossible to know. Everything we learn in science is about thinking relations between perceptions. The separate 'frames' of a falling apple I unite through the law of gravity, the attracting charges, through the Coulomb's law and so on. All we are doing is relating perceptions through concepts and ideas in thinking. This is the immediate fact. Even contemplating EEG graphs has meaning only as long as I unite in thinking, the perceptions of the spikes on the graph with some feeling for example. So really - what of all this requires that I postulate hard boundary between consciousness and a world-in-itself which by definition can never be proven to exist? Please, observe this well. Nothing, really - nothing - of all the achievements of science depends in any way whatsoever on a world independent and of completely opaque nature to consciousness. I speak about the facts of science, not about their numerous philosophical interpretations, which don't change the facts in any way.
And I repeat - I don't claim that the full reality of the falling apple exists in the contents of my consciousness, as it is in the moment. I'm only saying that there's nothing in the given which justifies to postulate a world of different nature than consciousness. Any such postulate can only come from arbitrary decision of thinking.
So let's be clear. There's nothing in current science that requires the existence of a world of different nature than consciousness. All that science does is find lawful relations between perceptions within consciousness. This doesn't prove in itself that consciousness will find the reality of the apple in some future expanded state but there's also no justification to reject this possibility out of hand. Any such rejection can only be the result of thinking that feels comfortable to draw a chalk circle around itself and believe that there's no need to look beyond it. This is what it really boils down to.
Let me put that in a box:
So I hope it's crystal clear that science does not depend on the existence of this world-in-itself. The reason that people insist on the existence of such an opaque World has nothing to do with science. It has to do with entirely psychological factors. It's all about the chalk circle and the uneasy feeling that reality may indeed be much closer to us than we imagine it by fantasizing it as a remote and inaccessible world-in-itself. The fact that one hasn't experienced anything beyond the chalk circle doesn't yet prove that there's nothing there. There are people who have never experienced love or haven't seen the Pyramids with their own eyes but does this mean that no such things exist? Or it simply means that the expanding chalk circle has not yet encompassed them?There's nothing in the scientific method that requires the existence of a world opaque to consciousness. All the laws that we find are thinking laws that interrelate perceptions. It is completely irrelevant to our mathematical models what the true nature behind these perceptions are. With our science we practically try to replicate the appearances of our perceptions by correlating them with mathematical models.
If we postulate an impenetrable boundary between consciousness and the World, we can do that only as an arbitrary decision of thinking. There's nothing in the given that hints of the existence of such an opaque to consciousness World. And how could there be? If there was something in consciousness which proves that the world-in-itself exists, this would mean that it's not that independent of consciousness after all. If it was really opaque to consciousness then by definition we can never know if it exists or not. Thus the world-in-itself forever remains only a matter of blind belief. We simply choose with our thinking to postulate such a world.