I'll ask my questions again. Which of these three sentences do you agree with, if any:
1) It is impossible in principle to measure the activity of all neurons in a live, conscious human brain
2) If we had a tool that could measure the activity of all neurons in a live, conscious human brain, and we used to to measure my brain activity as I read a text to myself, it would be impossible to deduce the text from the measurements.
3) If we had such a tool then it might be possible to deduce the text from the measurements, but the measurements nevertheless aren't measurements of the actual thoughts I had.
We don't! And we do. We are aware of what we are thinkikng. We just don't find any physics to it! Perhaps you could "create" a tool to do it! LOL
I'm referring to tools that could measure the activity of all neurons in a human brain. Thoughts don't do that, and I find it weird that you would equate thoughts with such a measuring tool when you clearly believe that thoughts aren't types of physical brain activity.
The reason I asked for your take on those three positions is because (2) is the only way your example could demonstrate that thoughts aren't physical. (1) and (3) are the only ways it could avoid demonstrating that they are. If you don't endorse any of those sentences then your example cannot in principle demonstrate that thoughts aren't physical.
Regardless of what it can demonstrate in principle, your example as stated definitely doesn't demonstrate thoughts aren't physical; if an experiment gives the same result when something is physical (like sign language) as when it isn't, then the results of the experiment cannot prove that something isn't physical.
Your logic is failing you in that you fail to acknowledge that code is made of matter and you will not recoord information either way.
Why would I acknowledge something that you haven't yet demonstrated is true?
Code and information are to different things. My experiment proved that information has no physics thatrt we know of!
As I've shown, your example proves no such thing. Every argument you've made so far trying to show it does starts from the premise that information isn't physical, which is assuming your own conclusion.
It's not the tool is imperfect for what it is designed to do. It's just that it has a mission that it can't achieve.
I'm curious, do you think it is false that neurologists have managed to differentiate vowels from consonants from electrocorticography brain scans?
Do you think it's impossible in principle to do what these people claim to have done?