I'm sure those things are 'but' inventions of the CNS considering they wouldn't exist without external stimuli. The above sounds very 'sense-data' theory to me. All the same, it doesn't define consciousness, it just describes neurological processes that are believed to cause it. Conspicuously omitted is a definition of the subjective, experiential quality of consciousness, which is of course what people generally understand by the term.
*Runs like fuck*
But someone of your caliber should already understand that
any definition of consciousness would fall short, since it's a colloquial umbrella concept used to allude to a broad territory of interconnected physics, functions, processes, and neurobiology. So to ask for a definition is a mistake.