I believe their base-line definition of consciousness is a basic perception of the Self, recognizing oneself in the mirror and so forth.

You helpfully define it as well. And I've heard that definition widely accepted by scientists.

Scientists can't agree where consciousness comes from. But we know what consciousness is and the various ways non-human animals are able to express that they are conscious.

I am open to a differing view, nonetheless. But I think there are very good reasons for accepting the animal rights position.

And from what I gather your beef is in the weeds, so to speak. You do find that animals can feel pain. You just think that it's not morally noteworthy because they are not conscious in a morally significant way?