Neurons emit signals electrically and transmit signals chemically.

Their axons, their "biggest, output dendrite", are covered with a "myelin sheath" to increase the speed of signal transmission. The "sheath" is actually a lot of little sheaths with spaces without sheaths to let ions through, leading to what's known as "action potentials". The ions used are potassium (K+) and sodium (Na+), and they traverse the surface of the axon through tiny holes to propagate the action potential.

The fact they are ions should tell you that gold isn't it as a stand-in, as gold doesn't ionize (lose or gain electrons that can form bonds) easily in solvents like water. In fact, instead nitric acid hydrochloride is used to dissolve gold and make gold oxide out of it.

Additionally. Lead is poisonous in high concentrations because it replaces one of those ions necessary for the propagation of the action potential, but obstructs the aforementioned tiny holes, leading to a loss of potential until the signal cannot be propagated anymore, impairing the normal function of neurons. Lead's atomic number is 82, rather close to gold's 79. They are BIG atoms, compared to the smaller potassium (19) and sodium (11). Gold in neurons for electrical transmission doesn't look like a good idea.

Chemically, the transfer of an action potential is done from the end of the axon of a neuron to the next neuron through hormones, huge proteins. We aren't talking individual species of atoms at this point, and I am not versed enough in the proteins' composition to tell you whether they contain precious metals, and whether "enhancing" such proteins with precious metal would lead to any improvement in the transmission of action potentials.

Although, considering the mechanism of transmission of information through hormones (chemical bonds with the receptors at the surfaces of cells, that must be released) and the fact hormones are degraded quickly, leaving free-floating atoms and ions that could wander wherever and cause damage, I'll attempt a guess and say gold once again, isn't it. Silver, perhaps, but I'm once again faced with ignorance.

Physical strength is derived from the mass of muscle tissue, fibrous cells stuck together and reacting to action potentials (electrical voltage and salt contract the fibers). Muscle is essentially red meat and is common to all "red-meatted" mammals. Precious metals pretty much have nothing to do with the strength of the fibers and is not specific to humans, meaning the evolution of "red meat" predates humanity.

Neurons emit signals electrically and transmit signals chemically.

Their axons, their "biggest, output dendrite", are covered with a "myelin sheath" to increase the speed of signal transmission. The "sheath" is actually a lot of little sheaths with spaces without sheaths to let ions through, leading to what's known as "action potentials". The ions used are potassium (K+) and sodium (Na+), and they traverse the surface of the axon through tiny holes to propagate the action potential.

The fact they are ions should tell you that gold isn't it as a stand-in, as gold doesn't ionize (lose or gain electrons that can form bonds) easily in solvents like water. In fact, instead nitric acid hydrochloride is used to dissolve gold and make gold oxide out of it.

Additionally. Lead is poisonous in high concentrations because it replaces one of those ions necessary for the propagation of the action potential, but obstructs the aforementioned tiny holes, leading to a loss of potential until the signal cannot be propagated anymore, impairing the normal function of neurons. Lead's atomic number is 82, rather close to gold's 79. They are BIG atoms, compared to the smaller potassium (19) and sodium (11). Gold in neurons for electrical transmission doesn't look like a good idea.

Chemically, the transfer of an action potential is done from the end of the axon of a neuron to the next neuron through hormones, huge proteins. We aren't talking individual species of atoms at this point, and I am not versed enough in the proteins' composition to tell you whether they contain precious metals, and whether "enhancing" such proteins with precious metal would lead to any improvement in the transmission of action potentials.

Although, considering the mechanism of transmission of information through hormones (chemical bonds with the receptors at the surfaces of cells, that must be released) and the fact hormones are degraded quickly, leaving free-floating atoms and ions that could wander wherever and cause damage, I'll attempt a guess and say gold once again, isn't it. Silver, perhaps, but I'm once again faced with ignorance.

Physical strength is derived from the mass of muscle tissue, fibrous cells stuck together and reacting to action potentials (electrical voltage and salt contract the fibers). Muscle is essentially red meat and is common to all red-meat mammals. Precious metals pretty much have nothing to do with the strength of the fibers and is not specific to humans, meaning the evolution of "red meat" predates humanity.

Neurons emit signals through two mechanisms: electrical and chemical.

Their axons, their "biggest, output dendrite", are covered with a "myelin sheath" to increase the speed of signal transmission. The "sheath" is actually a lot of little sheaths with spaces without sheaths to let ions through, leading to what's known as "action potentials". The ions used are potassium (K+) and sodium (Na+), and they traverse the surface of the axon through tiny holes to propagate the action potential.

The fact they are ions should tell you that gold isn't it as a stand-in, as gold doesn't ionize (lose or gain electrons that can form bonds) easily in solvents like water. In fact, instead nitric acid hydrochloride is used to dissolve gold and make gold oxide out of it.

Additionally. Lead is poisonous in high concentrations because it replaces one of those ions necessary for the propagation of the action potential, but obstructs the aforementioned tiny holes, leading to a loss of potential until the signal cannot be propagated anymore, impairing the normal function of neurons. Lead's atomic number is 82, rather close to gold's 79. They are BIG atoms, compared to the smaller potassium (19) and sodium (11). Gold in neurons for electrical transmission doesn't look like a good idea.

Chemically, the transfer of an action potential is done from the end of the axon of a neuron to the next neuron through hormones, huge proteins. We aren't talking individual species of atoms at this point, and I am not versed enough in the proteins' composition to tell you whether they contain precious metals, and whether "enhancing" such proteins with precious metal would lead to any improvement in the transmission of action potentials.

Although, considering the mechanism of transmission of information through hormones (chemical bonds with the receptors at the surfaces of cells, that must be released) and the fact hormones are degraded quickly, leaving free-floating atoms and ions that could wander wherever and cause damage, I'll attempt a guess and say gold once again, isn't it. Silver, perhaps, but I'm once again faced with ignorance.

Physical strength is derived from the mass of muscle tissue, fibrous cells stuck together and reacting to action potentials (electrical voltage and salt contract the fibers). Muscle is essentially red meat and is common to all red-meat mammals. Precious metals pretty much have nothing to do with the strength of the fibers and is not specific to humans, meaning the evolution of "red meat" predates humanity.