Does it matter if the mind is neurologically originated or not?

For example, in this answer , we find Buddhists insisting that the mind is not a "byproduct" of the brain, i.e. the mind does not arise neurologically in the brain. By neurology, I mean that according to that view, the mind arises by the electrical and chemical interactions happening in neuron cells of the physical brain. I have also seen Ajahn Brahm stating in a video that even a person with dementia would have a moment of clarity of mind, just before death, proving that the mind is not neurologically originated. My understanding is that Buddhists have this view, because without it, it does not seem sensible that the mind stream can be reborn into another life. Is this right? That's my first question. This answer is interesting: > Consciousness (viññana) and Materiality (rūpa) are related as are > magnetism and electricity. Their relationship is reciprocal, each > conditioning the other. They are dependently originated, i.e. neither > exists independently. To me, it does not matter if the mind arose neurologically in the physical brain or not. My analogy is that software or data is composed of the bits of 1s and 0s on the physical media of a computer, for example, harddisk and RAM. So, it is electronically and chemically originated. However, software can be copied or transferred to other computers or other physical media over networks. So, while software depends on physical media, this does not impede it from moving to other physical media. So, my second question is, does it really matter (in terms of holding the Right View ) if the mind is neurologically originated or not? I think if the mind is neurologically originated, it does not matter and does not impede the notion of rebirth or continuity of the mind stream, just like in the case of software.