Well, the thing about the long-term philosophical dialogue generally is that it moves extremely slowly - and the discussion of technology isn't an exception. Th

Well, the thing about the long-term philosophical dialogue generally is that it moves extremely slowly - and the discussion of technology isn't an exception. The concepts are well-grounded and thoroughly debated but they resist change. One could argue that, like the Catholic Church, philosophers are still on the fence about Galileo and this Ribbonfarm article [1] gives an interesting discussion how the rise of instrumental sensing was taken by philosophy (not well). This situation that a lot of thinkers of science and technology wind-up doing what you describe Wolfram as doing ("Concepts are slammed together by private intuitive leaps") - some better, some worse. The work of Alfred Korzybski or the framework of original "cybernetics" are some of my favorites. But none of these has been rolled-back into the mainstream of philosophy and so science and technology continue their way and philosophy continues its way. Wolfram is only the latest example of this. [1] https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/one-tenth-of-a-second https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/one-tenth-of-a-second