I am proposing a model, where experience is 'aware of x', where x is a diverse array of content, content including sense perception, images, symbols, thoughts, dreams and the inertia of sleep.
First, before we get into the heart of the matter, I think there's a semantic problem with your choice of words above, and it's one that could easily lead to all sorts of misleading consequences - presumably, you do not mean to say that "experience"
is the same as being "aware" of anything. Presumably you meant to say that so-called "consciousness" is another name for "awareness"?
That's likely to be an important distinction, because it can end up as completely misleading if you say that "experience" of anything is the same as "awareness", when by "awareness" you actually also mean "consciousness". To explain that -
- just because you "experience" something, i.e. something happens to you, that does not necessarily make you are aware of that event. What is claimed to be making you aware of anything, is the thing that you & everyone else here has been calling "consciousness" ... i.e. the thing that in science we would ascribe to normal brain function. That is (to explain it!) - the brain interacts with the nervous system through all sorts of complex and rapid chemical and electrochemical processes, to produce a sensation or "effect" that we call "consciousness" ... that's not of course the same as "experience"
However saying that it was a simple semantic issue (i.e. just use of the wrong, or less accurate/appropriate word) to say that "experience" was the same as "conscious awareness", means that when you begin with a confusion like that, then you are very likely to end up by misdescribing and misrepresenting everything that follows.
Per this discussion I am less concerned with the x, the content; and more interested in the 'aware of' aspect of the model. This aware of aspect is the constant that allows for subjective experience - like a movie screen allows for diverse content to be projected on it (an analogy). This aware of also includes an element of existing and being, so I am defining 'consciousness as being present, being aware'.
OK, well lets take first your conclusion, i.e. the definition that you arrived at in the last line of that paragraph where you say
“so I am defining 'consciousness as being present, being aware' “ … well that is certainly NOT a definition that makes any attempt to define or explain what you mean by consciousness … because all you have done is to say that by “conscious” you mean “aware” … but “awareness” is just another word that is being used for “consciousness” … i.e. those two words are used interchangeably to mean the same thing, so it does not explain or “define” anything about “consciousness” to say it is “being aware” … you have to say what you actually mean by “being aware” …
… what do you mean when you say you are “aware" of anything?
That's actually the question I was asking here several times before, i.e. can you describe what you sense or experience when you say you are “conscious” of anything? … what is manifesting as “thoughts” in your “mind”? You started to give an answer to that above, when you said
“it's like an image projected on to a movie screen” (that's an accurate re-arranged paraphrase of your sentence above), but that is just describing visual imagery as an impression or effect in your thoughts/mind, i.e. in the working of your brain with your sensory/nervous system … that's all fairly well understood in medicine, and it's a simple physical result of normal brain function and the sensory system, i.e. it's what we call vision! … you can see things, because you have functioning eyes, and eyesight is fairly well understood, as also is the way the brain interacts with eyes to create a visual image of things.
Now you might object that, apart from things we actually see whilst fully awake, we also "see"
apparent images in dreams whilst in a sleeping state. But afaik, that is also fairly well understood. That is – the sensation of dreaming, and imagining visual scenes, smells, sounds etc., is not regarded within medicine or science as some amazing inexplicable mystery … it's presumably (we can check) explained largely by the effect we call “memory”, that is – a representation of those senses of sight, smell, sound etc. is retained within the cells of specific parts of the brain, and they can be recalled as memories which seem to us in dreams as if they are real events happening at that moment … they are recalled and processed/altered “memories”, but that is not some amazing mystery.
That's probably as far as I need to go without addressing your remaining two paragraphs, where I think you are just mostly repeating what you have already said above (and which I've just replied to).
So just to be clear about the reply I've just given -
- if you say that the effect that you are calling “consciousness”, i.e. “awareness” (that's just two words meaning the same thing), manifests itself in such things as visual imagery, where you said it was like seeing things on a movie screen … you are just describing what we call sight in awake states, and memory effects from sleep states, all of which are afaik very well understood in medicine (even without needing psychology or neuroscience) … and they are certainly not examples of a world around us that does not actually exist. They are certainly not examples or evidence for "everything happens within consciousness" (to quote your own previous statement).
Just on a separate issue – over the last couple of pages there has been considerable discussion of something called “Blindsight”, and a paragraph was quoted which actually comes from Wikipedia, where a patient with so-called “blindsight” was able to walk down a passage avoiding objects … but whether or not the effect of “blindsight” is correctly described (such that the patient is truly entirely blind to any such objects, and/or can always easily avoid them), that is certainly not an example of an unreal world or any sort of support for solipsism (and that is the issue of dispute in this thread) – in that example the patient and the object were stated as entirely real (they exist in a real world!), and even the condition of blindsight itself is said to be a physical injury to a real living brain … it just seems to be an example of how brain damage can produce all sorts of unusual an unexpected responses in unfortunate patients. However, having said that, a lot of the case studies in books by authors like Oliver Sacks, do stray into areas of medicine that are far from clearly verified and accurately described in verified published research. E.g., all sorts of reports of so-called “Savants”, inc. “musical Savants”, which is something that I've read about quite a lot in books inc. those from Oliver Sacks … it's interesting and unusual stuff, but I suspect it's also quite far from being verified exactly as described in many of those popular-level books. 
