At this, for each individual consciousness the distant external world in the form of the Universe, stars, oceans and all that consciousness in own carrier doesn't see directly or it is incapable to sense of all these objects, certainly, is an objective world though it is formed by single consciousness which represents also each individual consciousness; but any individual consciousness in human life, and in any living being, "is cut off" from single consciousness and therefore even own "now" it forms by means of single consciousness on the basis of the specific sense organs the living being.

It is clear from here that the appearing close world, or a surrounding of each person, his "now" too is not dependent directly from individual consciousness; any individual consciousness "accepts" a surrounding as it is, or as this world is manifested, although "now" of each individual consciousness is formed on the basis of sensations of the person, but the individual consciousness in the person "does" the own surrounding partly subordinate of itself only in the activities. Actually, for this purpose the world is "given" to each individual consciousness in the person. Otherwise, without this base, it would be senseless to speak about development of consciousness within the available environment.

So that this difference in dependences and independence of the world from the person, communication of the world with the person through sensations should mark and not to declare unequivocally about secondariness of consciousness, about exclusivity of the objective reality which is reflected in our sensations as it has done Lenin V. I. or to declare, as it has done Mach and Avenarius, about coincidence of consciousness (sensations) and matter.

The active (consciousness) can't be as secondary in relation to lifeless objects, or to the things, which are not capable to be reproduced, to the things which are not have a genome as well as the reality can't be exclusive, sole – the reality for each living being is its own and this reality is "scooped" by consciousness of each living being by means of the sense organs, which it has, directly from boundless Uniform with the hidden help of the single consciousness, to correspond to each living being, species which there can be a set.

Nietzsche, apparently, has understood, more precisely, he intuitively has felt this difficult ratio of things and consciousness (sensations). He, in particular, disagreed that correspondence of language (the thinking tool) of external and internal reality is truth: "What such word? It is transmission by sounds of the first irritation. But to do the inference from irritation of nerves to the reason lying out of us there is already a result of false and inadmissible application of provision on the base. If only truth was a decisive condition in case of an origin of language, and collecting designations of subjects, people were satisfied only certainty, – then thus we could tell that: "the stone is solid" as though the word "solid" designates something absolute, but not our absolutely subjective sensation!" [2, p. 3].

As for Avenarius in his opposition to an objective truth (which is denied by him) of value of cognition by the principle of the smallest expenditure of forces: "If the basis of theoretical apperceptions … consists in principle of the smallest measure of forces, the influence of the latter should be affected in austerity execution of the process of apperception. It, undoubtedly, also is impacted that the amount of representations of apperceptions is brought to a minimum, necessary for apperceptions. At comparative-scientific consciousness the aspiration to be restricted in case of an apperception perhaps by smaller reproduction of representations is manifested in needs of unity and in the requirement avoiding all excessive" [3, §22], then this approach is connected to operation of the organism which is aimed to an economization of efforts, but it hasn't a direct bearing on dependence or independence from consciousness of things.