I’m not gonna be able to have patience for this. Just read the first part of this, if you bother to read any of it at all: https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-of-conciousness/

“The usual methods of science involve explanation of functional, dynamical, and structural properties—explanation of what a thing does, how it changes over time, and how it is put together. But even after we have explained the functional, dynamical, and structural properties of the conscious mind, we can still meaningfully ask the question, Why is it conscious? This suggests that an explanation of consciousness will have to go beyond the usual methods of science. Consciousness therefore presents a hard problem for science, or perhaps it marks the limits of what science can explain. Explaining why consciousness occurs at all can be contrasted with so-called “easy problems” of consciousness: the problems of explaining the function, dynamics, and structure of consciousness. These features can be explained using the usual methods of science. But that leaves the question of why there is something it is like for the subject when these functions, dynamics, and structures are present. This is the hard problem.”

You’re truly naive if you think these sorts of concerns vanish by noticing that, with “scanners or something”, we can make certain physiological measurements & observations of the brain. Experience itself has to be accounted for. No prominent thinker from Socrates to Einstein has ever thought anything like “thoughts are just chemicals”. You’re vastly underestimating the nature & extent of what’s being spoken about, and I sincerely hope you read & study enough to come to a more accurate understanding. Better yet, a more enriching and interesting understanding.