conscious awareness, exert greater self-control, plan ahead, develop fears, feel pleasure, and erupt into rage. Subjects also provided their personal opinions on which individual, within the pair, they liked most, wanted to make happy or destroy, was most deserving of punishment, and most likely had a soul. I assume that everyone reading about the design of this study has already formed an opinion about some of the comparisons. Presumably everyone believes that a living adult is more consciously aware than a dead person, fetus, dog, and robot. Presumably everyone believes that all animals feel more pain than a dead human or a robot. And presumably everyone would rather make a dog happy than a frog, and would be more likely to allocate souls to fetuses, babies, and adult humans than to robots and frogs. But are we more conscious than God? Does a chimpanzee feel more embarrassed than a baby? Can a person in a vegetative state feel more pleasure than a frog or robot? What dimensions, if any, cause us to lasso some things together but not others? What things cluster together and why? As a reminder: this study is about our intuitions, not about what scientists have discovered about the minds and emotions of these different things. Adding up the large set of responses produced a map or landscape defined by two dimensions: experience and agency. Experience included properties such as hunger, fear, pain, pleasure, rage, desire, consciousness, pride, embarrassment, and joy. Agency included self-control, morality, memory, emotion recognition, planning, communication and thinking. Experience aligned with feelings, agency with thinking. With these dimensions, we find God at one edge, high in agency and low in experience. On the opposite side, huddled together on the landscape, defined by low agency and high experience, we find fetuses, frogs, and people in a vegetative state. High in both agency and experience were adult men and women. Robots and dead people were low on exper