People always repeat these stupid things like they're lore. Ok let's suppose this is true. What else is true is that neurology itself was inspired by phrenology and the practice of exorcisms. Should we now start recognizing and exalting those connections given how divorced modern (useful!) neurology is?
Hinton's most recent paper on forward-forward acknowledges Peter Dayan explicitly for his feedback on the paper, and cites a paper they cowrote together back in the 90s. Dayan being the author of the canonical textbook on theoretical neuroscience.
Major distinction given those practices have been abandoned as pseudo science or even worse, so they aren't fields of science continued to be developed which further useful connections might be found.
In psychiatry, there is a certain amount that we continue to study social standards of normalcy in other (including historic) societies to determine what should count as a mental disorder, but more to make sure we aren't doing a 21st century equivalent of labeling something as a demon possession because it contrasts with our current deeply held social norms.
So what is the meaning of to do with and nothing to do with? Inspiration seems to be a relationship.
Consider a different relationship between cellular biology and the Cells at Work anime. Clearly any relationship is unidirectional. Any cellular biology learns nothing from the anime, but the anime wouldn't exist without cellular biology.
Do we say the show has nothing to do with cellular biology? That doesn't seem right to me, given it depends upon it despite taking an amazing degree of artistic freedom.