Below, substituting "gravity" for "experiments".
Let's logically unpack the distinction between mind-dependent and mind-independent contexts - with an appropriate analogy. From the old Warner Brothers cartoon series - in one episode, the Road Runner hands the Coyote an anvil, the Coyote steps back over the ledge of a canyon, but he does not instantaneously plunge into the pit. The Coyote hovers in space - motionlessly - until the Road Runner points-out to him that he's hovering. Only after the Coyote realizes that he's buoyant, does he plummet.
If anyone can - somehow - redefine the word "gravity" to make it sensitive in mind-dependent (thought) contexts, then the same result as in the cartoon above would be produced in reality - say - a person suspended over a canyon would not plunge until he realizes that he's suspended. However, gravity is not answerable to a mind. Likewise, the results of an experiment are not answerable to a mind. Either an experiment obtains under the mind-independent conditions of the world, or what you are calling an experiment is no experiment. A thought simulation of an experiment is no experiment.
JoshingThySelf seeks to convince himself that the linguistic determines the extra-linguistic. Can by merely prefixing the word "thought" to the word "gravity", then thinking about gravity warp space and time, determine the orbits of the planets, generate a black hole, etc. - as "empirical" gravity does?
Similarly with the word "experiment": The only way that an imaginary experiment could be an experiment is if reverse supervenience (cartoon causation) prevailed in our universe; that is, should the mental determine the physical. If - by imagining an experiment, it resulted in a set of human actions, emerging under the mind-independent conditions of the world, only then could an imaginary experiment be an experiment.
Below, substituting "reefers" for "experiments".
Below, substituting "REEFERS" for "EXPERIMENTS".
If thought reefers were reefers, existing in reality, would this not obviate the role of the black-market economy - in which pot growers, dealers and customers currently play? A pot smoker could (with his mind alone) imagine some ultra-potent Kush - which would satisfy his desire to get roaringly baked. Yet, only with imaginary guns, badges, bullets, battering-rams and pot-sniffing dogs could imaginary narcs raid the "grow ops of the mind".
Incoherently babbling that empirical reefers are different than thought reefers is a tautology. You cannot roll and smoke thought reefers, 'cuz - since they do not exist in reality, thought reefers cannot be rolled nor do they burn. Identically with thought experiments, experiments cannot be carried-out - solely - in the province of the mind.
Should - by merely - imagining the possession of a stack of fat doobies land a citizen a mandatory-minimum stretch in pokey?
The Scientific Enlightenment was supposed to have dealt the death-blow to Josh's mind-dependence (thought) slop. Following the ideals of the Enlightenment, the world (including the fundamental force of gravity, a reefer or an experiment) exists independently of human minds. In rather audacious fashion, Josh rejects the Enlightenment - that pillar of science, objectivity and rationality.