Yes, neurons generate mental content. But that is nothing more than everyday understanding. If you want to argue with scientific precision, you have to separate the neuronal, i.e. physiological, level from the philosophical or psychological. As I said, we must not say that apples make pears. If you want to explain something mental, you have to derive it ontologically and only then translate it into the language of psychology.
The whole mind-body problem arose from this hasty category mistake. In the case of the ancient Greeks, this is still understandable, because there was no division into different sciences with their respective conceptual apparatus.
Today, however, it is obvious, but continues to be mixed up, unfortunately also in academia.

If by non-physical things you mean psychology, we have a different sign system than biology. Biology creates the ontology, thus answering the question of what life is and what exactly does consciousness mean there. When we have that, we can try to apply these created categories to other (human) sciences. Only then do things like meanings, thoughts, etc. come into play.

I have presented the mind-body problem as a pseudo-problem using an equation that makes no sense. This equation represents exactly the mind-body problem.
However, one can learn from this pseudo-problem, namely that one must categorize this problem correctly, and that in a uniform monistic language. Physics, which deals with inanimate nature, is not an option for this, but biology. One must then understand consciousness as a biological category in order to establish a unity between nature and spirit.

As long as the difference between animate and inanimate nature is not seen and only physics is used to clarify both, one will never understand the principle of life and just as little consciousness. A discussion is therefore only worthwhile with those who want to get involved with this point of view.

'The whole is different from the sum of its parts' is a very general expression that applies to life in general. Thinking, on the other hand, is a very complex process that only developed in the course of evolution, which also applies to thinking, but which cannot simply be transferred.

Unfortunately, you don't understand the whole thing. It was just about showing that you can't explain philosophy with physics. But this simple connection already seems to be too difficult. Well, never mind.

I wanted to point out two things in my post:
1. The mind-body problem is based on a misunderstanding in which two different languages are related to each other, which can be illustrated with the equation: n neurons (physics) = consciousness (philosophy). It is therefore wrongly tried to explain a philosophical concept physically, which is simply not possible.
2. Since we are all biological beings, it must be possible to explain all expressions of life (including consciousness) biologically. To do this, you have to biologically operationalize what we call consciousness. If you do this, you get the general concept of orientation for consciousness and for this the central nervous system has developed in the course of evolution.
And now one can specify this concept of orientation for all other human sciences.
Actually quite simple, isn't it?
No, because science still doesn't want to or can't understand that life is already a concept of structure, life is structure, because not one of the dead building blocks of life contains life. The phrase 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts' is actually wrong. It should mean 'the whole is something other than the sum of its parts'. As long as you don't understand this, you will always want to reduce biology to physics.

Although Spinoza saw a unity of body and mind, he also believed that both were two sides of the same, but could not explain this unity.
My approach says that body and mind are not two sides of the same coin, but that consciousness is a property of the brain and it has the function of orientation, just like the heart has the function of pumping blood. That's a big difference. Nowadays, Spinoza's approach is more represented by the so-called four E's. There one sits on a naïve phenomenalism and squanders the opportunity to analyze the complex levels of regulation and their connection analytically.

Life consists of molecules and can be adequately described with them. The quantum level is not necessary for this. Imagine you drive your car into a tree. What was the cause of this, such as quantum fluctuations? Of course not. You drove too fast. Quantum processes are the result of this macroscopic event. Reversing the chain of causality makes no sense.

I think life can be explained by the way (dead) molecules work together. That is, the lower level of life is molecules. Consciousness at the level of molecules can also be adequately explained with this. The fact that molecules consist of atoms and that these can be represented quantum mechanically is irrelevant. I only explain the function of a car by its components such as cylinder, fuel pump, etc.
I see consciousness as a property of the brain as the heartbeat is a property of the heart. It can be described objectively as a structure and subjectively it follows the sensitivity that is already known from unicellular organisms and occurs there as a reaction to chemical gradients.