Can a non-human “reason” in the sense of inferring

Solution 1:

Let me generalize your question somewhat: Can an inanimate object agree with a verb that alludes to an animated action? The answer is yes – language is frequently stretched in that manner. Consider:

These dark brown walls swallow the light in the den.
The plain, sparse table begs for adornment.
The defendant's controversial acquittal screams injustice.
The folk singer's soothing music breathed peacefulness into the cafe.

Generally speaking, walls don't swallow, tables don't beg, acquittals don't scream, and music doesn't breathe, but all of those sentences work just fine.

So, can the verb reason be used with an inanimate object? Yes, it can, provided that either (a) the subject can be personified, or (b) the verb can be reasonably adapted for use with the non-living subject, without introducing excessive awkwardness.

In your example, that certainly appears to be the case. Spatial reasoning is the ability to make certain decisions or judgments based on a physical layout (e.g., "Will all this stuff fit into one suitcase?"). So, what you're essentially asking is, "Can a cognitive ability use numbers to form a conclusion?" Seems reasonable to me.

WhiteSmoke didn't flag it; neither would I.

Solution 2:

If I use a book to learn, that doesn't mean the book learns. It means I learn, using the book.

However, we sometimes do speak about inanimate or non-human object "reasoning", but this is an anthropomorphic use. It's similar to saying, "the search engine wants to give you the best results it can".

For example:

The system reasons by checking the 'IF' part of each rule. If the conditions described in the 'IF' part are matched, the system activates the 'THEN' part of the rules.

And:

The machine reasons over and about first-order beliefs in a normatively correct fashion using a variety of machine reasoning techniques.