Don’t we? We can build something which has all the output associated with reasoning.
I’d say we’ve figured out the fundamentals behind reasoning.
I’d say we’ve figured out the fundamentals behind reasoning.
But secondary to that, symbols != semantics. If I had a magical machine which could appear from the outside to be reasoning, but upon closer introspection was simply simulating reasoning, by definition it would not be reasoning. And yet that is the criterion you seem to think indicates reasoning ability. So it's not a sufficient criterion.
Claiming we've figured out the fundamentals behind reasoning is hopelessly naive.
1. Mimicking a process may not prove that the system is truly preforming the same process. In this case, a "reasoning" process.
2. A system that simulates a process cannot, by definition, be doing the process.
The first claim can be defended, but the second doesn't follow from the first.
Calling it a "simulation" is assuming the conclusion. What makes it a simulation rather than some implementation of reasoning on a different substrate? I.e. transistors rather than neurons.
Sure. A photocopier fed with a maths paper.
What does this say about your reasoning?