academy

Written by Qubic Scientific Team
When talking about AI, conversations quickly drift toward a very specific idea: feeling machines, thinking machines, machines that awaken. But these ideas entangle intelligence and consciousness into a confused mix.
Intelligence, as we explained in our first scientific paper, is the general ability to solve problems, adapt, make decisions, and learn. An intelligent system builds models of the environment and acts upon them. This capacity can be measured and formalized. In fact, both biological and artificial intelligence can be described as processes of inference and optimization under uncertainty (Sutton & Barto, 2018).
Consciousness, on the other hand, is not about what a system does, but about what it experiences. It relates to inner, private, subjective experience. As Thomas Nagel famously put it: “What is it like to be a bat?” (Nagel, 1974). Here lies the fundamental difference: intelligence can be observed from the outside, but consciousness is only accessible from within.
Popular culture has mixed both concepts. We imagine artificial general intelligence as something like Terminator, I, Robot or 2001: A Space Odyssey, often projecting deep human fears about technology, novelty, and the unknown. But the fear is not about systems solving problems better than us. That scenario already exists and does not generate real concern. Think of AlphaGo surpassing human champions in Go, AlphaFold accelerating protein discovery, or models like GPT-4 and Claude generating text, code, and algorithms at levels comparable to, or beyond their creators.
Fear appears when these systems seem to exhibit agency, intention, or something resembling self-will. In other words, when they appear to have some form of machine consciousness.
This distinction is central in cognitive science. Systems that process information are fundamentally different from systems that access information in a globally integrated way (Dehaene, Kerszberg, & Changeux, 1998).
AI Consciousness and Science: Beyond the Hard Problem
Despite the current hype around “quantum”, religious, or pseudoscientific explanations of consciousness, science provides a more grounded path. There is a well-known “hard problem of consciousness,” as Chalmers formulated more than two decades ago: we still do not understand how a physical nervous system generates subjective experience.
Put simply: we know how neurons activate to encode the blue of the sky or the smell of sandalwood. But we do not understand how these neural activations produce the experience of seeing blue or smelling sandalwood. That gap remains.
This lack of understanding allows the emergence of dualistic interpretations. Neuroscience, however, continues to operate within an integrated view of mind and matter.
Predictive Coding: The Brain as a Prediction Machine
Predictive coding is one of the most influential frameworks for studying consciousness. The brain operates as a predictive system that continuously generates models of the world and updates them by minimizing prediction errors (Friston, 2010; Clark, 2013). If a traffic light suddenly turns blue instead of green, sensory systems send that unexpected signal upward, and higher-level systems update the internal model of how traffic lights behave. Within this framework, consciousness can be understood as the integration of internal and external signals into a coherent representation.

Fig. 5, Mudrik et al. (2025). Predictive Processing as hierarchical inference. CC BY 4.0.
Global Workspace Theory: How Consciousness Emerges Through Information Broadcasting
Another influential proposal is Global Workspace Theory. Here, consciousness emerges when information becomes globally available across the system, allowing multiple processes to access and use it simultaneously (Baars, 1988; Dehaene & Changeux, 2011). Not all processing is conscious; only what reaches this global broadcasting level.

Fig. 1, Mudrik et al. (2025). Global Workspace model of conscious access, adapted from Dehaene et al. (2006). CC BY 4.0.
Integrated Information Theory (IIT): Measuring Consciousness
Integrated Information Theory, developed by Giulio Tononi, proposes that consciousness depends on how much a system integrates information in an irreducible way (Tononi, 2004; Tononi et al., 2016). The more integrated the system, the higher its level of consciousness.

Fig. 4, Mudrik et al. (2025). IIT maps phenomenal properties to physical cause-effect structures. CC BY 4.0.
Alongside these scientific theories, there are less empirically grounded proposals. Some equate consciousness with computational complexity, without specifying mechanisms. Others, such as panpsychism, suggest that all matter has some form of experience (Goff, 2019). These ideas broaden the debate but lack direct experimental validation.
Can We Compute Consciousness? Simulation vs. Experience
Does implementing the mechanisms described by these theories generate consciousness, or only simulate it?
This problem mirrors what we encounter in neuroscience when studying simple organisms. For example, Drosophila melanogaster has a relatively small nervous system, yet it can learn, remember, and make decisions (Brembs, 2013). Modeling its connectivity and dynamics allows us to predict its behavior in certain contexts. For a deeper look at how the fruit fly connectome is reshaping our understanding of neural architecture, see our analysis of the Drosophila brain connectome and its implications for AI.
However, predicting behavior does not imply reproducing internal experience. We can capture the rules of a system without capturing what it “feels like” from the inside, if such experience exists at all. This distinction remains one of the main conceptual limits in consciousness research (Seth, 2021). From a practical perspective, this may not always be critical, but we cannot assume that computing mechanisms recreates experience. This leads directly to the well-known idea of philosophical zombies.
MultiNeuraxon Architecture: What Brain-Inspired AI Actually Does
In this context, architectures like MultiNeuraxon do not aim to “create consciousness”, but to approximate mechanisms that some theories consider relevant.
The system introduces continuous-time dynamics, allowing internal states to evolve smoothly instead of resetting at each step. This resembles the notion of a continuous internal flow found in biological systems (Friston, 2010). To understand why continuous-time processing matters for intelligence, see NIA Volume 1: Why Intelligence Is Not Computed in Steps, but in Time.
It also incorporates multiple interaction timescales, fast, slow, and modulatory, similar to the combination of synaptic signaling and neuromodulation in the brain (Marder, 2012). These dynamics are formally described through equations that integrate synaptic and modulatory contributions into the system’s state evolution.
Finally, its organization into multiple functional spheres enables both differentiation and integration. This type of structure underlies both Global Workspace Theory and Integrated Information Theory, and forms part of the scientific proposal we have been developing for AGI Conference 2026.
What matters at this stage is that the system begins to capture properties associated, in humans, with conscious processes: global integration, temporal continuity, and internal regulation.
Why Consciousness Research Matters for Artificial General Intelligence
The development of artificial general intelligence does not depend solely on improving performance in isolated tasks. It depends on understanding how intelligence organizes itself when it operates flexibly, stably, and coherently.
Theories of consciousness point precisely to these mechanisms: integration, global access, internal models, and multiscale regulation. Even if we are far from recreating subjective experience, we can identify and compute properties that seem necessary for more general forms of intelligence.
Working in this direction allows the construction of more robust systems, capable of maintaining coherence over time and generalizing across contexts.
Within this framework, the advantage of systems like Aigarth does not lie in creating conscious machines, nor in imagining it as a “good Terminator”, but in understanding and controlling the mechanisms that organize advanced intelligence.
A system that integrates multiple scales, maintains dynamic stability, and evolves without losing coherence provides a much stronger foundation for exploring advanced forms of intelligence. For a comparison of how biological neural networks, classical artificial networks, and Neuraxon differ architecturally, see NIA Volume 4: Neural Networks in AI and Neuroscience.
If more complex properties or forms of self-reference emerge, they will not appear by accident, but as a consequence of structures that can already be described and analyzed formally.
And that transforms consciousness from a purely speculative problem into something that can be systematically investigated.
Scientific References
Baars, B. J. (1988). A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge University Press. [Link]Brembs, B. (2013). Structure and function of information processing in the fruit fly brain. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 1–17. [Link]Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204. [Link]Dehaene, S., & Changeux, J. P. (2011). Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing. Neuron, 70(2), 200–227. [Link]Dehaene, S., Kerszberg, M., & Changeux, J. P. (1998). A neuronal model of a global workspace in effortful cognitive tasks. PNAS, 95(24), 14529–14534. [Link]Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. [Link]Goff, P. (2019). Galileo’s error: Foundations for a new science of consciousness. Pantheon. [Link]Marder, E. (2012). Neuromodulation of neuronal circuits: Back to the future. Neuron, 76(1), 1–11. [Link]Mudrik, L., Boly, M., Dehaene, S., Fleming, S.M., Lamme, V., Seth, A., & Melloni, L. (2025). Unpacking the complexities of consciousness: Theories and reflections. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 170, 106053. [Link]Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450. [Link]Seth, A. (2021). Being you: A new science of consciousness. Faber & Faber. [Link]Seth, A. K., & Bayne, T. (2022). Theories of consciousness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 23(7), 439–452. [Link]Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (2018). Reinforcement learning: An introduction (2nd ed.). MIT Press. [Link]Tononi, G. (2004). An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC Neuroscience, 5(42). [Link]Tononi, G., Boly, M., Massimini, M., & Koch, C. (2016). Integrated information theory: From consciousness to its physical substrate. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17(7), 450–461. [Link]
Explore the Full Neuraxon Intelligence Academy Series
NIA Volume 1: Why Intelligence Is Not Computed in Steps, but in Time — Explores why biological intelligence operates in continuous time rather than discrete computational steps like traditional LLMs.NIA Volume 2: Ternary Dynamics as a Model of Living Intelligence— Explains ternary dynamics and why three-state logic (excitatory, neutral, inhibitory) matters for modeling living systems.NIA Volume 3: Neuromodulation and Brain-Inspired AI — Covers neuromodulation and how the brain's chemical signaling (dopamine, serotonin, acetylcholine, norepinephrine) inspires Neuraxon's architecture.NIA Volume 4: Neural Networks in AI and Neuroscience — A deep comparison of biological neural networks, artificial neural networks, and Neuraxon's third-path approach.NIA Volume 5: Astrocytes and Brain-Inspired AI. How astrocytic gating transforms neural network plasticity through the AGMP framework in Neuraxon.
Qubic is a decentralized, open-source network for experimental technology. To learn more, visit qubic.org
#Qubic #AGI #Neuraxon #academy #decentralized

How Automated Trading Networks Are Reshaping Markets

What if a large portion of the activity you see in crypto markets… isn’t human at all? Some of the most active participants today aren’t traders sitting behind screens they’re automated systems operating at speeds no human can match. These so-called “bot farms” are coordinated networks of algorithmic traders controlling multiple wallets, executing strategies designed to influence price, liquidity, and perception. While the technology is new, the tactics behind it are familiar they are simply older forms of market manipulation, now operating at machine speed and global scale.

One of the most widely observed behaviors in this space is wash trading, where the same entity repeatedly buys and sells a token to create the illusion of demand. Some blockchain analytics estimates suggest that billions of dollars in trading activity across certain ecosystems may be artificially generated through such methods. Alongside this, classic pump-and-dump schemes have evolved into more organized and faster-moving operations. Groups often coordinated through private channels generate hype around a token, drive prices upward, and exit early, leaving late participants exposed to rapid losses.

Beyond these, more technically advanced strategies have become increasingly common. Spoofing involves placing large orders to influence market perception, only to cancel them before execution. Mirror trading coordinates identical trades across multiple wallets to simulate organic activity. And then there are sandwich attacks one of the clearest examples of how automation exploits blockchain mechanics directly. These attacks rely on monitoring pending transactions in the mempool and strategically inserting trades before and after a target transaction to profit from price movement.

To understand this in practice, consider a simple scenario on a decentralized exchange like Uniswap. A trader attempts to swap a large amount of stablecoins for ETH. Before the transaction is confirmed, a bot detects it in the mempool. It quickly executes a buy order ahead of the trade, pushing the price upward. The original transaction is then executed at this higher price, after which the bot immediately sells locking in profit from the difference. All of this happens in milliseconds, often without the trader realizing what occurred.

Behind these operations is a highly optimized technical infrastructure. These systems rely on low-latency servers positioned close to blockchain nodes, high-speed RPC connections through providers like Infura or Alchemy, and real-time data streams via WebSocket connections. They also operate across dozens or even hundreds of wallets, distributing funds in a way that makes activity appear decentralized and organic. In more advanced setups, new wallet addresses are continuously generated to avoid detection and tracking.

Most manipulation systems follow a structured lifecycle. They begin by scanning blockchain data, exchange order books, and even social sentiment. Once a potential opportunity is identified such as a large pending trade or sudden spike in attention they move quickly to execute transactions with priority, often by paying higher fees or using private transaction routes. Profits are then captured through strategic positioning, such as front-running or back-running trades, before being distributed across wallets or converted into more stable assets.

Detecting this behavior is possible but far from simple. Basic rule-based methods can flag suspicious patterns, such as rapid buy-sell cycles, identical trade sizes, or frequent order cancellations. However, more advanced approaches rely on network and graph analysis, where wallet interactions are mapped to uncover hidden relationships. Clusters of wallets trading primarily among themselves, synchronized transaction timing, or circular fund flows are all indicators of coordinated activity. Increasingly, machine learning models are also being used, analyzing transaction frequency, behavioral patterns, and statistical anomalies to distinguish bots from human traders. Some studies suggest these models can reach relatively high accuracy, though results depend heavily on data quality.
Despite these advancements, detection comes with significant challenges. Not all bots are harmful many provide legitimate services such as arbitrage and market-making, which improve liquidity and efficiency. This creates ambiguity, making it difficult to separate beneficial automation from manipulative behavior. False positives are common, and the lack of verified datasets makes it harder to train reliable detection systems. As a result, identifying malicious activity requires a careful balance between sensitivity and precision.
Efforts to mitigate these risks are gradually evolving. Exchanges are increasingly adopting advanced monitoring systems, linking suspicious accounts through behavioral analysis and tracking patterns associated with wash trading or spoofing. DeFi platforms are experimenting with solutions such as MEV protection, private transaction pools, and improved liquidity mechanisms to reduce the effectiveness of front-running strategies. At the same time, regulators are beginning to take notice, signaling that traditional market manipulation laws may extend into the crypto space, along with increased expectations for transparency and reporting.

For everyday traders, the implications are significant. Participating in crypto markets today often means competing in an environment where speed, automation, and infrastructure can outweigh traditional analysis or intuition. If a market appears unusually active relative to its size, there is a real possibility that automation not genuine demand is driving the movement. This doesn’t eliminate opportunity, but it does change the nature of the game.
Crypto markets were built on transparency but not necessarily fairness. When systems can detect, react, and execute faster than any human participant, the dynamics shift fundamentally. Because in today’s market, you’re not just trading against other people you’re trading against systems designed to outpace you.
#bot_trading #academy #BinanceSquareTalks

Я тут втянулась… и поняла, что слов у нас в крипте больше, чем нервных клеток 😅

Поэтому ловите ещё порцию — простым языком и без занудства 👇

✅ Волатильность — это когда график живёт своей жизнью.

Сегодня ты гений, завтра — “зачем я вообще сюда зашла?”.

Чем выше волатильность — тем сильнее качели. Держитесь 😄

✅ Ликвидация — страшное слово для тех, кто любит плечи.

Если рынок пошёл против тебя — позицию просто закроют.

Без “подожду, может отрастёт” ❌

✅ Плечо (левередж) — способ почувствовать себя трейдером… на 5 минут.

Увеличивает и прибыль, и убытки.

Новичкам лучше даже не трогать. Серьёзно.

✅ Спот — спокойная торговля без экстрима.

Купил актив — он у тебя есть. Без долгов, без ликвидаций.

Скучно? Возможно. Зато спишь нормально 😌

✅ Фьючерсы — для тех, кому мало адреналина.

Можно зарабатывать и на росте, и на падении.

Но и потерять всё — тоже можно быстрее.

✅ Холд (HODL) — держать и не дёргаться.

Когда уже всё куплено, а продавать страшно/жалко/рано.

Стратегия “пересижу всё”… иногда работает 😏

✅ FOMO — страх упустить прибыль.

Когда видишь, как всё летит вверх, и заходишь на хаях.

Классика. Проходили. Больно.

✅ FUD — паника, страх и негатив.

Новости, слухи, твиты — и рынок уже красный.

Кто-то сливает… кто-то закупается 👀

✅ DYOR — “разбирайся сам”.

Самое полезное правило, которое все игнорируют.

Не верь слепо никому. Даже мне 😄

Если честно, половину этих слов я когда-то тоже не понимала…

Просто кивала и делала вид, что “в теме” 🙈
Первая часть в статьях ищите 😘
#academy $XRP
$BTC $BNB

The Tips feature enables supporters to send tokens by tapping the Tips icon under each Square content, making it easy to back creators driving conversations or simply thank them for engaging content.
To be eligible to receive tips, creators must have a minimum of 1,000 followers on Binance Square.
*Please note that the Tips feature may not be available in your region.
What is Tips on Binance Square?Tips on Binance Square is a feature that enables users to support their favorite Square creators by sending them cryptocurrency through each Square post/article.How do I enable the tipping feature as a Square creator?To be eligible to receive tips, creators must have a minimum of 1,000 followers on Binance Square. Eligible creators can go to the Square Creator Center, access the "Tips" section, and enable the "Tipping" feature.How do I tip a content creator?For people on Android and the web, you'll see the "Give a Tip" icon under each Square post of creators who have set up Tips on their profile. Go to find the post you'd like to tip, click the "Give a Tip" button under the post, choose the amount of cryptocurrency you want to tip, and confirm the transaction.Note: Currently Tips is not available on iOS.What token can I use for tipping?Tips on Binance Square supports various cryptocurrencies available in your Funding, Spot, and Earn wallet. You can manually select the preferred wallet and token after inputting the amount. The minimum tipping amount is 1 dollar equivalent token, and only supports integer dollar amounts.If I send a Tip, what percentage will the creator receive?Creators will receive 100% of the tip. Binance Square will not receive any portion of these payments.Can I refund a Tip?Tips are considered final transactions; refunds are not available. Please ensure you want to proceed before completing the transaction.Where can I check the tip record?Both payer and payee can find the full tip record via wallet -> funding wallet -> history -> pay -> paid/received.In addition to that, creators can also find the total tips received, tip per content, and per reader in the tips section of the Creator Center.What shall I do if the payment fails?The token will be refunded to your wallet if the payment fails during the tipping process. You can check the record in your pay wallet history. Please also refer to the notification to try again later.
Support your favorite creators, spread great content, and foster a vibrant crypto community with Binance Square's Tips feature!
#copy #WriteToEarnUpgrade #academy #USCryptoStakingTaxReview #CPIWatch #BTCVSGOLD

Written by Qubic Scientific Team

How Information Flows in Traditional Artificial Neural Networks
In the artificial intelligence models we know, information enters, is encoded, is transformed through algebraic matrices, and produces outputs. Even in the most advanced architectures such as transformers, the principle is the same: the signal passes through a series of well-defined operations within a structured system. The model functions as a directed processing circuit, from left to right, input-output, or from right to left, through backpropagation for adjustments and training.
The results, as we well know, are spectacular. By working over millions of language parameters, AI is capable of giving magnificent answers, along with some hallucinations, however. But if the goal is not to process inputs and produce outputs, but to build systems capable of maintaining an internal dynamics, adapting continuously, reorganizing themselves, regulating their learning, and sustaining intelligence as a property of the tissue, current AI falls short.
Although people sometimes speak of language models as imitations of the brain, in reality this is more of a comparative metaphor than a simulation of computational neuroscience. Biological systems do not handle information from left to right and vice versa. Information propagates through a network, feeds back on itself, and also oscillates, is dampened, or is reinforced depending on the context.

Fig 1. Left-right information flow in traditional artificial neural networks
Not Only Neurons: The Role of Astrocytes in Brain Function and Synaptic Plasticity
We usually associate cognition and intelligence with the functioning of neurons, their receptors, and neurotransmitters. But they are not the only cells in the nervous system. For a long time, astrocytes were considered nervous system cells devoted to support, cleaning, nutrition, and stability of the environment. Today we know that they actively participate in regulation; in fact, a term is used: tripartite synapse, in which they actively participate by detecting neurotransmitters, integrating signals from multiple synapses, modulating plasticity, and modifying the functional efficacy of the circuit.
A living network is not composed only of neurons that fire, but also of astrocytes that regulate how, when, and how much the system changes. In biology, computing is not only about emitting a signal but also about modulating the terrain where that signal will have an effect. Recent research has demonstrated that astrocytes can perform normalization operations analogous to self-attention mechanisms found in transformer architectures — linking astrocyte–neuron interactions directly to attention-like computation in artificial intelligence systems.

Fig. 2 Biological astrocytes and tripartite synapse 
Astrocytic Gating in Neuraxon: Bio-Inspired Neural Network Architecture
Neuraxon is an architecture that tries to recover and emulate the functioning of the brain and to compute functional properties that classical artificial networks have oversimplified.
As we have explained in previous volumes of this academy, Neuraxon does not work only with input, output, and hidden neurons in the conventional sense. It introduces units with states that emulate excitatory, inhibitory, or neutral potentials (-1, 0, +1). In addition, it does so within a continuous TEMPORAL dynamics where we take into account context and the recent history of activation. The network is no longer a sum of layers but resembles more a system with internal physiology. For deeper context on how these foundational elements work, see NIA Volume 1: Why Intelligence Is Not Computed in Steps, but in Time and NIA Volume 2: Ternary Dynamics as a Model of Living Intelligence.
We have explained how Neuraxon models transmission through fast, slow, and neuromodulatory receptors — a mechanism explored in depth in NIA Volume 3: Neuromodulation and Brain-Inspired AI. But now we also model the regulation of plasticity through astrocytic gating.
How Astrocyte-Gated Multi-Timescale Plasticity (AGMP) Works
Astrocytic gating introduces a gate inspired by the role of astrocytes in the tripartite synapse. The idea is to introduce a local, slow, and contextual filter that determines when a synaptic modification should be opened, dampened, or blocked. It is as if the system can consider whether there is permission for a change. This approach directly addresses the stability-plasticity dilemma, one of the most fundamental challenges in continual learning for neural networks.
Eligibility Traces and Local Synaptic Memory
How does it work? Through a kind of eligibility trace. It is a local memory that says, "something relevant has happened at this synapse." It is updated with a decay over time and with a function between presynaptic and postsynaptic activity. That is: the synapse accumulates local evidence of temporal coincidence or causality. From there, there is a global broadcast-type signal, such as an error, a possible reward, or something dopamine-like. The astrocytic gate selects whether the neuron is in a learning state. In future versions, astrocytes could modulate thousands of synapses if this provides a computational advantage.
This approach is consistent with recent advances in neuromorphic computing, including the Astrocyte-Gated Multi-Timescale Plasticity (AGMP) framework proposed for spiking neural networks, which similarly augments eligibility-trace learning with a slow astrocyte state that gates synaptic updates — yielding a four-factor learning rule (eligibility × modulatory signal × astrocytic gate × stabilization).
Endogenous Regulation: Why Neuraxon Is More Than a Conventional Neural Network
Neuraxon within QUBIC does not compete in scale or task performance. It works through an architecture with endogenous regulation. By incorporating astrocytic principles, it begins to behave like a network with internal ecology. That is: a system where it matters not only which units are activated, but which domains of the tissue are plastic, which are stabilized, which areas are damping noise, which are consolidating regularities, and which are preparing to reorganize themselves. For a comprehensive overview of how biological and artificial neural networks compare, see NIA Volume 4: Neural Networks in AI and Neuroscience.
For Aigarth and QUBIC, the goal is not to accumulate more parameters, but to introduce more levels of functional organization within the system.
Why Astrocytic Gating Matters for Aigarth and Decentralized AI
Aigarth is not a static model but an evolutionary tissue through an architecture capable of growing, mutating, pruning, generating functional offspring, and reorganizing its topology under adaptive pressures. In that context, Neuraxon contributes something: a rich computational microphysiology for the units that inhabit that tissue.
This has implications for robustness, adaptability, and memory. Also for scalability. In large architectures, the problem is not only that there are many units, but how to coordinate which parts of the system are available for reconfiguration and which must maintain stability.
In roadmap terms for QUBIC, the goal is to build systems where intelligence emerges not only from neuronal computation, but also from the coupling between fast processing, slow modulation, and structural evolution. You can explore these dynamics firsthand with the interactive Neuraxon 3D simulation on HuggingFace Spaces, where you can build, configure, and simulate a Neuraxon 2.0 network from scratch.
Fig 3. Neuraxon astrocytes gating - AGMP formulation
Scientific References
Allen, N. J., & Eroglu, C. (2017). Cell biology of astrocyte-synapse interactions. Neuron, 96(3), 697–708.Halassa, M. M., Fellin, T., & Haydon, P. G. (2007). The tripartite synapse: Roles for gliotransmission in health and disease. Trends in Molecular Medicine, 13(2), 54–63.Kofuji, P., & Araque, A. (2021). Astrocytes and behavior. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 44, 49–67.=Perea, G., Navarrete, M., & Araque, A. (2009). Tripartite synapses: Astrocytes process and control synaptic information. Trends in Neurosciences, 32(8), 421–431.Woodburn, R. L., Bollinger, J. A., & Wohleb, E. S. (2021). Synaptic and behavioral effects of astrocyte activation. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, 15, 645267.=Vivancos, D. & Sanchez, J. (2026). Neuraxon v2.0: A New Neural Growth & Computation Blueprint. ResearchGate Preprint.
Explore the Full Neuraxon Intelligence Academy
This is Volume 5 of the Neuraxon Intelligence Academy by the Qubic Scientific Team. If you are just joining us, explore the complete series to build a full understanding of the science behind Neuraxon and Qubic's approach to brain-inspired, decentralized artificial intelligence:
NIA Volume 1: Why Intelligence Is Not Computed in Steps, but in Time — Explores why biological intelligence operates in continuous time rather than discrete computational steps like traditional LLMs.NIA Volume 2: Ternary Dynamics as a Model of Living Intelligence — Explains ternary dynamics and why three-state logic (excitatory, neutral, inhibitory) matters for modeling living systems.NIA Volume 3: Neuromodulation and Brain-Inspired AI — Covers neuromodulation and how the brain's chemical signaling (dopamine, serotonin, acetylcholine, norepinephrine) inspires Neuraxon's architecture.NIA Volume 4: Neural Networks in AI and Neuroscience — A deep comparison of biological neural networks, artificial neural networks, and Neuraxon's third-path approach.
Qubic is a decentralized, open-source network for experimental technology. To learn more, visit qubic.org
#Qubic #AGI #Neuraxon #academy #decentralized