And a gorilla cannot -- not even in principle -- be the King of France. That is my point here. What a thing is -- determines what it cannot do.Some mentally retarded or senile are incapable of having rationality and volitional consciousness. Under your definition, they're not human.
Also, I think you have yet to make a successful test for rationality. Your latest test dealt with counting to 81. Lots of kids can't do this. Many adults (think aboriginal tribes) can't do this either. Under your test, they wouldn't be rational. But computer can count, so under your test, they would be rational.
So I say that there's more to rationality than counting. Unlike you, I'm fairly satisfied with the myriad tests cognitive scientists have generated over the decades to test for various cognitive abilities in animals. They've tested for syntax, semantics, object permanence, symbolism, self-recognition, abstraction, arithmatic, property discernment, problem-solving skills, etc. In my view, we should consider at least some of those tested-for cognitive abilities as indicative of rationality. Of course, there's not much riding on this for me. My ethics don't depend primarily on whether others are rational. I suspect that because you think your ethics do, you're more resistant to joining me, young Skywalker.
Oh, and animal behavior is often not repititious. Animals learn, at different rates, via different methods. They are not facsimiles of one another, nor even of who they were just yesterday. The more one studies an animal, the more one acknowledges how complex their behavior is.
In the style of Voltaire, I ask: Did nature bestow upon animals such cognitive abilities, including abilities to learn, such that they would not depend on these abilities for survival?