The very basic idea of average is:
$$ average=\frac{{x_1} + {x_2}....{x_n}}{n}\ $$
A function is nothing but just a graphical representation of a set of points(in the cartesian plane in this instance):

now on the interval [a, b], the the average of the function should had been
$$average = \frac{{y_1} + {y_2}......{y_n}}{N}$$, where n is supposed to be the number of y in the interval. Instead, yav is treated as the area divided by it's interval b-a.
Now, the average's definition could also say, finding one such value which could approximate to a certain range it's entire values of concern:
Again, interpreting a function's average as an area would give us the value of on square of a unit which would be a centrally approximated value of it's entire area; but, what I'm confused at is that y1, y2, etc.. are offset from the x axis and not functions themselves representing the entire range of points. So, how would the definition of average and the interpretation of area towards the average of a function make sense?

For a function $f : \mathbb R \to \mathbb R$, the average of the function on an interval $[a,b]$ is given by
$$\frac{1}{b-a}\int_a^b f(x)\,dx = \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n f\left(a + i\cdot\frac{b-a}{n}\right) = \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{y_1 + y_2 + \cdots + y_n}{n}$$
where the $y_i$ are the function values at points in the interval $[a,b]$ given by $y_i = f\left(a + i\cdot\frac{b-a}{n}\right)$.
The integral is the area under the curve and we divide by $b-a$, which is the length of the interval.