So far I've gotten some wacky results. The first test where I put not attention I got easily to 20-30 levels. But another test when I seemed to care and put a bit of effort, I went to 130 level, almost with no effort on my paint, just thinking I should get the healing animation and focusing a bit.
Another guy from agdg got to 260 levels and he told me he also seemed to got some wacky combos when he focused, when he was closer to 1 HP.
Would love to see if any anons here can report if some wacky shit happened and if they got diferent results when they focused on the damage or healing spells.
I'm not 100% a real scientist or I can prove a peer reviewed result, but so far this shit seem to be real.
The problem with secret spooky CIA research is that its by nature not peer reviewed, and can be used as ***evidence*** for big money funding fto shitty programs. There's loads of papers on ESP and telekinesis in the CIA, and none of those theories have been able to stand up to scrutiny.
They cant even explain the mechanism behind the consciousness manipulating pseudo-RNG numbers. By nature, you cant manipulate pseudo-RNG numbers
Ian Price
This guy is sitting there trying to control a shitty 8 bit game with his mind. We're doomed
Colton Rogers
the experiment has been replicated, and is a simple thing to do.
the effect is real. I'm not sure what it means, but I can confirm there seems to be some real phenomena.
Lucas Harris
i guarantee that what you are seeing are patterns where there are none. I bet you if i calculated the program's score's expected value, it would be high, explaning why you are "winning", or you are just being lucky with the score has a high variance and low mean
David Ramirez
RPG maker you say? I just reported you to MI5 for manufacturing weapons.
You do realise that there is no true computationally based RNG right? Its all pseudo-RNG.
Henry Gomez
mind can affect pseudo RNG as well.
Lincoln Nguyen
why dont you test out your powers on slot machine
Benjamin Rivera
dunno, right now another user in a general can't go higher than 8.
Josiah Brown
>They cant even explain the mechanism behind the consciousness manipulating pseudo-RNG numbers. By nature, you cant manipulate pseudo-RNG numbers There's only a single, infinitely long 4-dimensional electron moving backwards and forwards through time, with what we see as different electrons (all having the same charge and mass) actually being intersections where the infinite electron piece of spaghetti crosses through our three dimensions like slices of salami. This is how our (electronic) brains interfere with RNGs inside (electronic) computers—despite the magnitude of the magnetic field around our heads falling victim to the inverse square law and being undetectable by our current understanding of how information propagates—because the electrons pushing about on metal are OUR electron. THE electron.
No, it's called "pseudo" for a reason. If you know the starting conditions of a prng you can run it over and over again and the result is always the same. That's why Terry used a true RNG as his oracle.
Christian Smith
I know what is a pseudo RNG, I'm saying the effect also affects computer RNG (pseudo RNG).
Camden Wood
>if you care you put in more effort and and achieve higher results
its paranormal
Jack Bell
>That's why Terry used a true RNG as his oracle. Always the legend. Shame he died, he was insanely intelligent
Hudson Powell
nice bit... be a shame if a cosmic ray flipped it
it's simple; everything always works in the most abstract of capacities with a lack of unknown variables and emergent behaviours. and that's just how life is, right? because it's simple
Christian White
thank god this is a joke >infinitely long 4-dimensional electron infinite length = infinite mass, which is obviously wrong. it has to have some finite length >electrons interfere with other electrons enough for our minds to interfere with arbitrary signals in a computer if electrons 3 feet away can change bits in my computer, statistically, it should crash from random memory edits and loss
boolshit, explain how logically, or run a long test using probability theory
Daniel Rogers
Nigger, I'm not a real scientist.
I did my best with my skills. I can only confirm I got diferent results when I didn't though nothing and didn't care vs when I really focused.
Zachary Harris
different results dont mean that theres a difference because youre working with pseudo-random data.
you actually have to run a couple hundred to a thousand trials and measure a statistical difference
just play some online dice rolling simulator and do 100 rolls, youll see it starts to converge to an even distribution. your game is hard to reduce to a probabilistic distribution without analyzing its code, so just do a simpler test
Andrew Thompson
>which is obviously wrong because you measured a slice? hah >if electrons 3 feet away can change bits in my computer, statistically, it should crash from random memory edits and loss under what premise? >if a gun fired from 3 feet away can change bits in my computer, statistically, it should crash from random memory edits and loss can =/= will
Carson Watson
Just read the cia paper.
It has been replicated with diferent setups, done by real scientists.
It's not even my idea, there's plenty of /x/ videos claiming the mind can affect a machine RNG.
Jack Bailey
there is no machine RNG that would defeat the purpose of RNG
Ryder Hill
It also affects pseudo RNG.
Daniel Sullivan
cia paper is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper, almost because no scientist is wiling to sift through 90 pages of shit
>because you measured a slice? hah what did he mean by this? infinite length of an object = infinite mass, unless the width and height of the object approach 0, which is impossible >under what premise? you retard: if my brain can somehow change the flow of electrons in a computer, then the other objects near it, with greater mass than my brain, should do it as well
furthermore, what actual evidence do you have that people can willingly change the flow of millions of electrons in a computer by just thinking about them
Samuel Peterson
the effect is absolutely real. it's not a coincidence that Steve Bannon got his fortune from pulling data from the WoW servers to selling in-game gold as well as using player data to feed algorithms for various purposes.
i find it fascinating how determined you are to make others believe this. If you are surely right, wouldn't you encourage further testing as that would confirm your position? Or are you attempting to dissuade people from finding legitimate patterns based that have predictive power?
Evan Torres
shoot some dice
Nicholas Walker
Make it available on mobile so I don't have to walk my lazy American ass from my couch to my PC to go set it up. I'll wait.
Carson Cruz
ctrl+f "schizo" 0/0 results found
what the fuck?
Jonathan Diaz
yeah well fuckin magnets, how do they work? check mate, labcoat
>encourage further testing burden of proof is on you, you are trying to say that X is real, i am saying there is a lack of evidence
>legitimate patterns if you want legitimacy, here's knoweldge coming from a person with a background in theoretical probability: you need to show me why these "patterns" are from actual changes in the probability distribution of the PseudoRng(...) function by running an experiment with enough trials and finding a low enough p value to show statistical significance
