Of course it will!
It will be called Na (+) UpK (+) DownRebootOnlineNet. The prediction is based on knowledge of the process of impulse formation, the interaction of neurons and the English language.
In Russian, this name can be translated as depolarization-recharge in the web.
It is not outdated, but incorrect and does not explain anything. No scientist today, or ever, would define consciousness in this way. The definition must be unambiguous. What is "brain electrochemical process"? One impulse, its spread, thought, emotion, or maybe an epileptic seizure? See, no specifics. And yet you are right about something, consciousness is really based on the simplest processes. What it STILL is and how it is realized is not yet fully understood. If you present your definition as I said, it will not be outdated, because it cannot be. It's like saying "an organism is a group of cells." And try to prove the opposite. These are just the first three words out of a thousand in the definition of an organism. Nobody knows what will happen in 2100.
No, it will not become obsolete, but it will be supplemented with the line "this is also an electrochemical process in the brain," assuming that neurons in the brain can conduct many different energies.
It seems to me that against the background of brain research and experiments related to this area (in particular, I'm talking about recognizing letters and symbols when analyzing the activity of the human brain), we will find even more facts indicating the material nature of our consciousness. At the moment, we do not have a single evidence in favor of the "ideal" nature of human consciousness and consciousness in principle.