What I think we have here is a problem with definitions and scope.
For example does your definition of problem demand a problem only exists if a human consciously thinks of it?
If no, then almost every single 'problem' that's ever existed was solved by the random walk of genetics. Nature has 'solved' some of the most difficult energy conservation optimizations in living systems with nothing but time and randomness. Think of how many problems had to be solved over time to go from an animal that swims to one that flys?
I disagree, but I'm open to being convinced
I just don't think you can solve a problem in any way without understanding it first, at least at a high level
I think if you know a solution you want to reach then you can work backwards from it in a brute force way to reach the solution you want
But I don't think you can take a problem where you aren't sure what the solution is and brute force the solution without understanding the problem