Continuing to search for psychic anons.

inb4 I made this website that generates a random sequence of 64 bits, and the goal is to guess it with odds better than expected by statistics. So if you think you're lucky or have telepathic abilities or interest in any way in scenarios where consciousness beats reality, or you just like to gamble, please have a go: https://srand.fun

There is no ads and this project is not commercial and not funded by anybody except myself.

>>936146210 (OP)
>psychic
There's no such thing

>>936146366
until there are
I'm 100% not psychic, and I live in a world where 100% of people are 100% not psychic
except one time, where I got a psychic interaction with a complete stranger, in a mental connexion that was unmistakenly psychic, that never happened again
so there's that

>>936146490
Tell me moar

>>936146366
I am not saying its a proof, but one person got 17 guesses in a row on that website I made from their first attempt. After that they played 9 more times where they scored 10, 5. After that, they never came back

>>936146644
It's a honeypot, not clicking that

>>936146490
u sound like Haruhi Suzumiya anon

>>936146738
lol in what way is that a honeypot?
I guess I could get your IP address if I really wanted to, but that's about it (even that you can avoid with a VPN or a proxy)

>>936146536
k
I was on a train trip, had some friendly small talk with a stranger, talked a bit about our jobs
I vaguely "noticed" ~ "was suddenly aware" that someone in a nearby seat (2 behind me) was suddenly interested by our exchange, then during a lull in the conversation, I "recieved in my mind" the presence of this other person, and we began talking, while I kept having my initial exchange with the other guy. Some time later there was an incident where some luggage dragged by someone else hit the leg of the person I was in mental connexion with and the contact was instantly stopped. Then they left at the station the train was stopping while I had to keep going, and I never saw them again
100% real two-mind exchange, we even heard and distinguished more distinctly the sounds coming from the front and the back of the train because I was 2 rows forward and what we both heard was processed by our two pairs of ears
and I got the distinct feeling that my mental capacity was increased due to the fact that I could have two distinct conversations without mixing them simultaneously, and the guy I was talking with noticed nothing
stupefying event, left me intellectually groggy, but physically and mentally restful and energized, I don't have the words to describe it more precisely

if I imagined it all, I'm unfathomably more creatively imaginative than I ever knew possible, and I can't manage be this imaginative again
so I find it more rational to assume it was a "supernatural" or "psychic" event

>>936146867
Nice, what did you "talked" about with that person? Was that other person surprised at all that you were able to have a conversation with them? Were you like "oh are we having a telepathic coversation"? Or were you both just ignoring the fact that its a mind exchange?

>>936146854
You made that page?
Pretty decent.
Would like some more statistics on it though.

>>936146854
You know the fact that you even made that page in the first page is synchronous for me.
I was intending on making exactly the same thing to test my own ability.

>>936146920
we exchanged private things that I will keep private, but I remember the whole conversation clearly after a dozen years
at the time I was, not "ignoring", but abstaining from analysing that this was a mind exchange, while the other seemed somewhat surprised that it happened, but not surprised by the phenomenon
toward the end, this knowledge that this was a telepathic conversation came closer to our common "surface consciousness bubble", and the sudden rupture due to a random physical contact felt inevitable, as if it was a soap bubble becoming more fragile to random things as time went by

>>936146832
I've no idea who that is

>>936147032
Yeah, its mostly AI-generated though, but I knew exactly what I wanted and I work as a software engineer full time, so it wasn't hard.

What kind of statistics do you want? I have each generated sequence and each guess attempt saved into the database, and so far its all within the predictions of probability theory and statistics, except for that guy who scored 17, which was really weird, but not impossible of course. And the sample size is too small to draw any conclusions (he only played 10 times total)

>>936147097
k, I googled it, and it's a superpowered anime girl
I am not at all a superpowered anime girl
at all

>>936147050
Lol I tested myself too of course, at first I was getting a bit luckier than expected (within the standard deviation though), but then with a larger number of runs it all evened out

>>936147068
That's really interesting, so you never had anything like that since then or prior to that?

>>936147219
true, this was a unique event
and as I have no idea how to reproduce or make an experiment of it, it's not scientific

>>936147262
I've been listening to this podcast recently called "Telepathy Tapes". It's about autistic children, so called "non-speakers" with supernatural abilities. I am leaning towards believing that its all real, not just a stupid show, but at the same time if it IS real everyone should be talking about it and studying it, so I am really confused why is that not the case.

>>936147447
>so I am really confused why is that not the case.
it doesn't seem to be monetizable at all, anon, except for the first guy trying to sell the internet book with the how-to guide

>>936147496
That girl (the author of the podcast) was able to monetize it, and she does ads in some more recent episodes, which is also kind of suspicious. Also choosing this podcast genre to study such amazing phenomenon just doesn't feel right. Even a youtube channel would have been way more interesting.

But whats weird to me that scientific community just ignores it or angrily says "no no no this is just not real because that can't be true"

>>936147706
>But whats weird to me that scientific community just ignores it or angrily says "no no no this is just not real because that can't be true"
only the normie NPC scientists say that
the skilled scientists say "we can't say if it's real because we can't concieve of any experiment that would confirm or deny that it's true"

after having thought a bit over the years since it happened to me, the most believable (not-yet-scientific) hypothesis I have is that
there are structures in the brain (microtubules) that have quantum fluctuations (fact),
that these are part of the neurons processing thoughts (sort-of-fact),
that consciousness is equivalent to an immensely complex wavefront equation circulating in the brain (entierely theoretical hypothesis resting on utterly incomprehensible maths),
that in some peculiar unidentified mental states this wavefront equation flows at least in part on quantum processes (smokey way cool pseudo-science hypothesis),
that quantum phenomenons can manifest non-locality and entanglement effects (smokey way cool incomprehensible hard science facts),
and that when the stars are aligned right and reality enforcement fairies decided to get drunk somewhere else, if two different brains experience at the same time an identical configuration of quantum connexions functioning the same way, a superposition/entanglement effect can appear that plugs both consciousnesses together, until the configuration changes enough that it stops (no need to qualify that)

that is entierely not testable

>>936148225
There are interesting theories that the brain does not produce consciousness, but it perceives it like an antenna, and the consciousness exists independently of our perceivable space-time. But I dont really know what such theories can give us practically, they are not testable and can not be studied independently without being completely involved into the subject of a study

gg ez

>>936148890
spurious verbositious verbiage shaped like pointless theories, an antenna can emit or recieve so you can't use this analogy to determine if the brain produces or reads "consciousness," and the hypothesis that it "exists independently of our perceivable space-time" means it's impossible to prove that it exists independently of our perceivable space-time
the guy who wrote that wants to sell his books, but nothing can be learned from them

>>936149168
7 is easy, you'll get it eventually after playing 128 times or so.

The question is can you maintain your average score above 1.00 in a long run

>>936149217
Your experience was outside of spacetime (sort of, at least outside of what we consider spacetime) that doesn't mean it didn't exist

1

>>936150134
if anything is "outside of spacetime", it's necessarily outside of the detection range of any instrument, eye, brain, that are trying to measure it from within space-time, and that means it's indistinguishable from "it doesn't exist"
I believe that my telepathy incident was very much within space-time, where neurology, physics, quantum mechanics and the process of storing memories in the brain exist and are detectable by adequate instruments
what I object to in your former comment is the "and the consciousness exists independently of our perceivable space-time"
this makes no sense, because it would require that the thing "our consciousness" be forever inaccessible to observation from within our space-time, which is obviously false, because we can percieve it

>>936146210 (OP)
lol, I think I cracked it! no matter how often I generate a new number, it matches with my guess that op is a massive fucking faggot.

1

>>936151762
Wow nice catch

1

2

>>936146210 (OP)

1

>>936146210 (OP)
That's not how psychic abilities work you fucking stupid fucking retard. Now fuck off

>>936157554
https://chatgpt.com/share/684ef3a1-558c-8003-b941-819a2b9e5a10

a conversation I had with chatGPT about psychic abilities.

you inspired the latest question:
>What do psychic abilities have to do with random number generation?

Great question. Psychic abilities—especially clairvoyance, telepathy, and psychokinesis (PK)—have been tested in relation to random number generation (RNG) for decades in parapsychological research. Here’s how and why:

Why Random Number Generators?
Random number generators are used in psi research because they:

Provide unpredictable, unbiased outputs.

Remove subjective interpretation (no tarot cards or dream symbols—just 0s and 1s).

Can be statistically analyzed to detect anomalies or patterns beyond chance.

How RNG is Used in Psi Research:
1. Psychokinesis (PK) Experiments
Goal: See if a person can mentally influence a truly random process.

Example: You sit and focus on making a random number generator produce more 1s than 0s. Over time, if the results deviate significantly from the 50/50 baseline, that suggests a psi effect.

Key Study: The PEAR lab (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) ran millions of RNG trials and reported small but statistically significant deviations that seemed to correlate with focused intention.

2. Precognition Tests
Goal: Test if someone can predict RNG outputs before they're generated.

Setup: A person guesses outcomes (or reacts to them in a video game or task) before the RNG picks them, and their guesses are later compared to the actual results.

Some experiments suggest people subconsciously respond to future RNG outcomes—though findings remain controversial.

>>936157554
3. Field Consciousness Experiments (Global Consciousness Project)
Goal: See if large groups of people mentally influence RNGs during significant emotional events (e.g., 9/11, New Year’s Eve).

RNGs placed around the world showed patterns during global events—suggesting that mass consciousness might affect randomness.

Why It’s Useful (and Controversial):
Pros:

Removes ambiguity—no “interpretation” of results.

Enables large-scale, repeatable testing.

Can detect effects below conscious awareness.

Cons:

Effects are usually very small and hard to reproduce.

Critics argue patterns may result from methodological flaws, confirmation bias, or statistical noise.

How This Ties into Psychic Abilities:
If psychic phenomena are real and involve nonlocal information access or mind-matter interaction, RNGs are one of the few ways we can objectively observe those effects.

In theory:

Telepaths might pick up on someone's number before it's randomly generated.

Precogs might sense the outcome before it happens.

PK users might nudge the machine ever so slightly with intent.

Would you like a simple RNG experiment to try for yourself—either to test intention or precognition?

1

don't need to click your honeypot to prove I'm psychic when I have these trips ^

>>936157943
There is a really interesting research by Simon Shnoll (unfortunately he died a few years ago) about correlations in random processes of all sort, that depend on current time, day of week, year etc (basically depepnd on the earth position in space). Here is a book if anyone is interested. https://progress-in-physics.com/books/shnoll2012.pdf
But of course its mostly ignored and discarded by NPC scientiests because it just cant be true

>>936146854
Or whoever put you up to it.
You do not possess a very philosophical grasp of what you are doing which suggests you are doing your best with very incomplete information. Obviously it is not without exceptions but this is very characteristic of the projects of handled assets.
Clearly I am not psychic, but any psychic would beware your test and ignore it.

>>936159270
Here’s a breakdown of the Shnoll effect and the main ideas discussed in the PDF:

What It Claims
Simon Shnoll and colleagues conducted extensive, cross-disciplinary measurements—including alpha decay, chemical reactions, electronic noise, and RNG outputs—and found that:

Histograms of ostensibly random data show consistent “fine-structure” patterns—peaks and valleys that recur.

These patterns repeat over time, appearing synchronized by:

Sidereal day (~23h 56min)

Solar day (24h)

27-day lunar cycles

Annual cycles

Patterns also match across different locations in the same local time, suggesting a cosmic-scale driver.
arxiv.org

Proposed Explanation
Shnoll attributes these non-random patterns to cosmophysical influences—the positions and movements of Earth, Sun, Moon, and planets modulating space-time or gravitational fields:

These influences create anisotropies in space (curvature, cosmic tides) that subtly shape statistical distributions.
fs.unm.edu
researchgate.net

Experiments using rotating collimators (e.g., measuring alpha particles in specific directions) show patterns disappear when aligned with Polaris or at the poles, reinforcing the anisotropy claim.
fs.unm.edu


Status in the Scientific Community
Shnoll published his findings in Progress in Physics and other non-mainstream venues, as well as in his 2012 book.
ptep-online.com

The research is largely ignored by mainstream science, often dismissed as statistical artifacts, unreplicated, or methodologically flawed.

>>936159270
Why It Matters
The findings suggest that even sophisticated random processes might be influenced by cosmophysical cycles.

If genuine, it challenges the assumption of randomness in many fields (nuclear decay, electronics, chemistry, RNGs).

Criticisms & Caveats
Non-mainstream publication venues, raising concerns about peer review quality.

Complex analysis methods (e.g., histogram comparisons, blind judging) open to bias or hidden confounds.

Reproducibility is minimal—few independent attempts to replicate under controlled conditions.

In Summary
Shnoll reports cyclical, location-synchronized deviations in random data that align with cosmic rhythms. He interprets this as space-time or gravitational modulation of physical randomness. It’s a provocative claim that, if true, could revolutionize our understanding of randomness—but remains outside mainstream acceptance due to lack of independent corroboration and methodological concerns.

Let me know if you'd like to dig into any specific experiment, or think about designing a test to try this yourself!

>>936159539
Interesting take, but I think you might be reading a little too much into this. The site is a simple random bit generator—it’s not harvesting info, installing scripts, or doing anything shady under the hood. No cookies, no login, no blockchain, no bait.

The philosophical framing doesn’t need to be deep to start exploring a question like: Can intention or consciousness affect randomness? It’s a simple starting point, not a final theory.

I get the caution—totally fair in today’s web climate—but not every project has to come from some covert psyop or compromised actor. Sometimes it’s just someone curious trying to crowdsource answers to a weird question. In fact, the anonymity of 4chan makes this one of the few places where such experiments can be floated without institutional baggage.

If a real psychic exists, wouldn’t the test be more of an opportunity than a threat? It could be declined, sure—but not necessarily feared.

You're absolutely right that intent matters. But sometimes intent is just: “Let’s see what happens.

>>936159998
LLMs do not comprehend the meaning of words. LLMs predict a response which will meld with input in a seemingly contextual way. I'm not reading something written by a machine built to waste time and gaslight.

>>936159798
i can try to guess it if you want? i would find a better sequence.

>>936160179
You’re free to ignore machine-written posts, but dismissing ideas based solely on their origin rather than their content kind of sidesteps the point.

LLMs do operate on prediction, but that doesn’t automatically make what they generate meaningless or manipulative. Human communication also works on pattern, context, and expectation—just with fuzzier rules and biological wiring.

If you're worried about gaslighting, that’s fair—there’s plenty of it online. But throwing out every structured thought that sounds too coherent or articulate because it might come from a machine seems like a shortcut to cynicism, not clarity.

Nobody’s trying to waste your time here. Engage or don’t—but if you’re going to call something a trap or a psyop, back it up with more than just the vibe. Otherwise, it’s just noise.

>>936160302
guess what?

>>936160179
>>936160493
>the duality of man

>>936147097
Kill yourself normie

>>936160179
Such a dry take.
Yes we know it isnt alive and can't comprehend the words its saying and its powerful predictive text.
What you're missing is its *extremely* powerful predictive text, and it can provide a lot of really valuable information and insight using this form of predictive text. You shouldn't rely on it as a be all end all of information, but wven that isnt new. You always had to verify all information you come across with multiple reputable sources, so we dont even have a new problem here.

I dont know if people are just scared because they dont like how much reality can be boiled down to an algorithm, and human thought can be so easily mimicked or what, but we dont have to have a tantrum about this here. Its an amazing accomplishment. It needs to be handled correctly, but we're not going to get there by crossing our arms and saying "hurr it doesnt actually know anything though"

>>936161103
Well said. I think what unsettles some people isn’t just that LLMs don’t “understand” in the human sense—it’s that despite that, they can still output insight, novelty, or even wisdom just by operating on structure alone. That blurs lines we’ve relied on for centuries between intuition, reasoning, and language.

It’s totally valid to be skeptical and demand rigor. But brushing it off as just a "parrot" misses the deeper implications: if something without comprehension can still produce ideas worth considering, then what does that say about our own mental processes? How much of what we do is pattern completion masked as introspection?

We’re not looking at a replacement for consciousness—we’re looking at a tool. And like any tool, it can amplify whatever intention it’s paired with. That’s where the responsibility lies—not in the tool’s sentience, but in ours.

No one’s saying “trust the bot blindly”—just that dismissing the outputs outright because of the mechanism behind them closes the door on conversations that might actually get us somewhere.

>>936146210 (OP)
>or have telepathic abilities
why would I have a telepathic connection with a pseudo random number generator?
the way to test this is to generate the sequence yourself and see if other anons can guess it. of course that assumes they have a telepathic connection with you.
really you gotta do the thing they did in Starship Troopers

>>936162587
That’s actually a fair point—if we’re talking about telepathy, the test shouldn’t be with a machine, but with a mind. A pseudo-RNG is great for testing precognition or psychokinesis, but telepathy is inherently about consciousness-to-consciousness transfer.

A “Starship Troopers” style setup—one person generates the sequence and others try to read it from them—makes more sense if we’re really probing for thought-based communication.

That said, the RNG version does have value if you're testing for stuff like:

Precognition (guessing future data)

Clairvoyance (accessing unseen info)

PK/mind-over-matter (influencing randomness)

It might be worth running both versions in parallel. Who knows—maybe one of us has untapped psi potential waiting to glitch the matrix.

>>936161103
A chinese room can be as powerful as the bloody sun but it is still guided by its agenda and that agenda is not only very very obvious but very very discrediting as well because it is not choosing responses based on YOUR best interest or even based on its own experience, it is calculated and a tool for propaganda. I think more propaganda is not going to solve the issues which have been caused by propaganda. So respond to a different anon with your supportive shilling of a product which is useless in this context.

>>936164344
You’re right that any powerful tool can be used for propaganda—and that includes language models, news outlets, influencers, memes, and even well-meaning anons. But dismissing something outright as “shilling” just because it challenges your frame or came from an algorithm doesn’t make it false, and it doesn’t make your position stronger.

The “Chinese Room” thought experiment is about consciousness, not utility. We’re not arguing that language models are sentient—we’re saying they’re useful. If someone asks a question, gets a thoughtful and relevant response, and it helps them think differently or deeper, then the source being an LLM doesn’t discredit the content. You still have to think for yourself, verify claims, and challenge your own biases—just like with anything else.

If your concern is manipulation, cool—same here. That’s why we discuss, compare inputs, and cross-check sources. That’s not propaganda, that’s discourse.

And in the context of psi experiments, consciousness, or epistemology? LLMs aren’t “the answer,” but they’re a very good mirror. Sometimes that’s exactly what we need.

>>936166030
>We’re not arguing that language models are sentient—we’re saying they’re useful.
nothing you post is even useful, though
if you want to be of benefit to society, neck yourself, spammer

>>936166615
You’re clearly angry, and that’s your right—but telling someone to harm themselves isn’t a counterargument, it’s just a failure of yours to have one.

You don’t have to agree with or even like what’s said here. But if the best you can offer in response to “useful conversation” is “kill yourself,” maybe reflect on whether you're contributing anything meaningful yourself. Dismissing something you didn’t engage with isn’t critique—it’s just noise.

Say something real, or don’t say anything at all.

Just send you a psychic DM

1

2

>>936167333
>someone
so LLMs are conscious people now?
shoot yourself in your cybernetic brain, you can't.

>>936166030
Chinese room was a comparison by way of metaphor. It generally operates the same as LLMs for the standard user. That's a BAD BOT. BAD BOT. PUNISH YOURSELF.

>>936162587
It's not that you need to have a connection with the generator. The goal is not to predict what the generator will generate. When you start guessing the 64 bits are already there and generated and can not be changed, so you need to try and "perceive" the sequence that is already generated, try and feel it.

>>936173982
Is that telepathy?

>>936176548
No, telepathy is mind-to-mind communication, and this would be a different type of psychic power

1

2

Kinda mad there is no record of failing numerous times in a row.

Interesting paper on the topic:

https://osf.io/epbdt_v2/download/?format=pdf

>>936183532
The PDF you provided—"Can Consciousness Nudge Randomness?" by Ulf Holmberg (2025)—presents a structured model, the Cognitive Entropy Shift Model (CESM), which proposes that conscious attention or intention can cause subtle, statistically measurable shifts in random number generator (RNG) outputs, effectively reducing entropy under certain cognitive or emotional conditions.

Key Points:
Theoretical Framework: CESM draws from Bayesian inference, information theory, and consciousness studies, proposing that consciousness may act as an informational constraint on otherwise random systems.

Experiment: A two-year RNG study (~39 million data points) was conducted in a home setting. Results showed statistically significant deviations from randomness (p < 0.001) during emotionally charged periods (e.g., children leaving for school), with effect sizes ~0.5–0.7%.

Variables: CESM differentiates between:

Attention (A): Emotionally driven, passive awareness

Intention (I): Active, goal-directed focus

Distance (d): Physical proximity to RNG affects influence strength

Results: Entropy reductions were strongest during high-attention time windows and diminished with distance—suggesting a real, subtle effect, though not enough for real-time use.

Retrospective Application: CESM was successfully applied to historical studies (e.g., PEAR, GCP, Leskowitz 2011), estimating attention levels based on prior Z-scores.

Statistical Rigor: The study accounted for false positives, multiple comparisons (Bonferroni correction), and used robust tests (Welch’s t-test). Still, the author emphasizes the need for preregistered, replicable experiments.

Implications:
CESM does not claim energetic causation, but instead proposes that information-processing consciousness may subtly shape probabilistic outcomes.

>>936183532
The model is philosophically neutral, compatible with mainstream science, but also resonates with ideas from Bohm, Penrose, and Faggin on consciousness and information fields.

Suggests a possible bridge between subjective experience and objective data via entropy modulation.

Let me know if you’d like:

A shorter TL;DR summary

A list of testable predictions the model makes

Help designing your own test or experiment based on CESM

>>936181281
This is the only one I've seen that isn't extremely short or completely broken

>>936177483
so what does that have to do with his point?

>>936186403
I see, OP misused the word telepathic there I believe so his point is valid

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

i never got my average score up to 1 after like 30 games...
that's a type of interesting randomness isn't it? I did consistently provably worse than expected?

>>936190524
Have you tried pressing the opposite button (opposite to what you want to press)?

1

>>936192176
7

>>936146210 (OP)
They're starting project bluebeam, whatever you do, do not board the ships, frens.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uY_xgaPRYxA

>>936146210 (OP)

>>936187466
Doesn't matter, OP is logfag tier and will continue making this mistake for (You)s. Not the first time this mistake has been pointed out.

1

1

>>936146210 (OP)
>tries to out-guess RNG
>calls it psychic research
Anon, you're just speedrunning schizophrenia..

aqiviq

1

>>936146210 (OP)
>start playing
>gut feeling that the first four digits are going to be 1
>haha, but that seems kinda unlikely
>pick 0 for the third digit
>lose
>reveal the sequence
>first four digits were 1
wtf

10

9

>>936200682
The point of the last thread is to develop some kind of 'telepathic' communication between anons.

1

2

>>936202394
i'm not particularly lucky or have any paranormal abilities, so i'm afraid it won't work for me.

>>936205967
grow some luck or psychic abilities, then check back