...without an understanding of what the reasoning problems are, it will not be
possible to implement their solutions. Plausible as this Platonic argument may
seem, it is in fact controversial in the context of AI...
It's even conceivable that reverse-engineering the brain might succeed first; though that approach didn't work for flight. In fact, the problem of flight wasn't well understood until some time after its solution was implemented. Same with light bulbs, and electricity itself. Actually, practice-first seems to have been the general rule; and theory-first is the exception (such as the theory of relativity).
Iteration (aka trial-and-error) can solve problems you don't yet understand.
Iteration (aka trial-and-error) can solve problems you don't yet understand.
That is not surprising, seeing that evolution itself is really just a really long iteration of different designs. I think about this quite a lot; I guess that we humans use our intelligence to aid our search and thus shorten the time from centuries to years. But the thing about invention is that you never know. The transistor was invented before its mechanism was clearly understood; but the theory showed the possibility of such a device to the scientists. The atomic weapon's theory was known before it was invented however (not discounting the massive engineering effort that made it practical though).
Interesting point about reverse-engineering the brain possibly succeeding first. The result of logical AI, however, is likely to be fundamentally different from the human brain or human mind. (Recall how difficult even simple logic is for... pretty much everyone.)
Iteration (aka trial-and-error) can solve problems you don't yet understand.