[flagged]
"An Act to make provision for an Animal Sentience Committee with functions relating to the effect of government policy on the welfare of animals as sentient beings."
Am I the only one who doesn't see a problem?
That's the question I called out earlier as being begged: in order to discard a definition of sentience (or of anything!) as insufficient, one must be able to show where it fails. That would admittedly be an impossibly tall order in this case, but my sympathy for the difficulty is curtailed by it being one our interlocutor has chosen to take upon himself, and attempt to bluster his way past anyone else noticing.
Even politely expressed, such an attempt to demand an impossible standard of others while excusing oneself from the same merits exactly the obloquy it's received.
You don't seem to understand that a rationalistic approach isn't going to lead you to conclusions that approximate accuracy about the world. See: philosophy that is over 100 years old as a reference, when people realized that this method of inquiry made no sense.
That being said, brushing aside your basic philosophical misunderstanding, it still follows that the burden of this challenge lies on the people who have outrageously claimed that they have uniquely solved it.
I make no such outlandish claims.