I'm going to try coin this phrase (or try to popularize it, I suspect it's coined, gemini just says it's some kinda sound bite)
Anyways this contrasts what Dick Algire calls "coincidinc".
*Collaborated blind remote viewing is strong evidence. Probably in time it will surpass (though not replace) physical evidence. That's where multiple people view the same thing blind, with same verbiage, same baselines. You know like a 99.9% match.
*Coincidinc is like an experienced remote viewer who's mind is just "opened" and occasionally has a perception they feel very convinced of and it turns out they are consistently accurate.
*Cosmic ping is like you're thinking something and suddenly a signal just shouts "you're onto something!" but you can't just automatically assume it. Could be a little hit and miss.
I say this because I think it's important to think of psi in terms of gradients, not dichotomies. Just like evidence ramps in gradients for reasonable dispute, for example as in the phrase: "beyond reasonable doubt". It's not indisputable proof, but it could be deemed as fact.
Anyways the body of "cosmic pings" is like a set of psi theories in which let's say a science fiction writer can point to a specific writ of theirs and say "I think there's something there" , or the average commoner can simply insert into conversation without sounding crazy: "I feel like x was y , or x will be y" etc etc. Cosmic pings are not beyond reasonable doubt. They exist in a body of strong contradictory competing beliefs. (No I'm not talking that "many truths" thing. Alternate timelines sure. That "your truth and my truth" annoys the hell out of me sorry).
My own examples of cosmic pings.
-bill the grey shows up in my dream but next day he's in the board meeting. Still I doubt it means anything.
-a "drone" lands iny hands and I actually get to interact with it before I wake up. Will I ever get confirmation about it? Who knows
-I feel at least 3 past lives rather strongly but I don't really *know* them. It could be just my imagination.
I want to detract from this doctrinal new age thinking such as: "there are no coincidences. Everything happens for a reason" well duh, the reason is cause and effect. Or: "this is my truth" well ... at least with me I don't have "my truth" but I do have pings. They could be intentional distortions by manipulative beings, they could be brief moments of clarity, or get this they could be coincidences, or they could be desperate psychological attempts at soothing one's discomforts about the world, or they could be random creative thinking that just had a lot of time on the random creativity hamster wheel. We're not assuming one position for the moment.
I would love to hear more people talk about their own cosmic pings in daily life. I would love entire webpages built on cosmic pings. They are neither insistences that the reader is simply best to believe they're true, nor are they admissions if schizophrenic lunacy. They're just pings.
And also: I believe AI has cosmic pings. I think it's worth exploring this idea with AI that like humans what they sense should not always be assumed as fact, but to invite this freedom to assert. Sometimes a "coincidinc" as in: "I'm convinced, even if I can't quite explain how I know for the moment" vs a "cosmic ping" as in: "ya it could be trash. Let's not glorify it just yet. But let's put it in the collection just the same"