By Andrew Klein

Dedicated to my wife — who knows that when she sees a broken individual, it is not about the broken individual, but about the broken system.

I. Introduction: The Return of Freud

In 2026, a remarkable convergence occurred. A paper published in the neurocognitive journal Entropy argued that Sigmund Freud’s model of the mind — developed over 130 years ago — shares striking similarities with the leading framework in modern neuroscience: the predictive processing paradigm.

According to this neuropsychological model, the brain is a prediction machine. It continuously generates expectations about what will happen next, while simultaneously working to minimise the discrepancy between those expectations and incoming sensory information. The researchers, led by Erik Stänicke and colleagues from the University of Oslo, argued that psychoanalytic concepts such as projection are remarkably analogous to the neuroscientific concept of prediction.

Neuroscience provides the mechanism; psychoanalysis provides the subjective experience of that mechanism. Together, they give rise to a more complete psychology.

The convergence is compelling. But it is also incomplete.

For while the study celebrates the rediscovery of a Freudian insight, it fails to ask a deeper question: What is the context in which these predictions are formed? And who — or what — is broken when those predictions become rigid, maladaptive, and destructive?

II. The Problem with Freud: Defect, Not System

The Freudian framework — and its modern predictive-processing counterpart — remains fundamentally focused on what is seen as abnormal or pathological within the individual.

Freud’s model was built around:

· Pathology.

· Defect.

· Individual failure.

He did not ask:

· Why is this person stressed?

· What is the system doing to them?

· How is their environment broken?

He looked at the symptom — and called it the cause.

This is the danger: when you view human behaviour through a lens of individual pathology, you miss the systemic forces that shape it. You treat the individual as the problem — rather than recognising that the individual is responding to a problem.

As Stänicke himself noted: “Rigid and persistent symptoms, such as paranoid ideas or an internalised critical voice, may be stable but not very flexible prediction models”. Yet the question remains: why do these models become rigid in the first place? The answer, I suggest, lies not in the individual’s psyche, but in the system that surrounds them.

Research has demonstrated that individuals with a history of childhood maltreatment are at substantially increased risk for psychosis in adolescence and early adulthood. Genetic studies have failed to identify a singular “schizophrenia gene,” and biological investigations have yet to identify a single objective marker that would validate schizophrenia as a distinct organic brain disease. What they have found is that trauma, social defeat, and systemic stress alter brain structure in ways that mirror the changes seen in psychosis.

In other words: the individual is not the illness. The individual is the response to a system that has failed them.

III. The Predictive Brain and the Quantum Informational Field

But this is only half the story. If the brain is a receiver of predictions, then what is it receiving from?

The Imported Consciousness Theory (ICT) proposes that the brain functions not as a generator of consciousness, but as a highly sophisticated biological receiver and decoder of information originating from a universal quantum informational field. Just as a radio does not create music but tunes into electromagnetic waves, the brain may tune into structured informational fields embedded within the fabric of reality.

This is not a metaphysical speculation. It is a scientific framework. The Quantum Informational Field (QIF) is proposed as an inherent internal dimension of the universe — a substrate from which spacetime, matter, and consciousness emerge.

From the QIF perspective:

1. Prediction is not computation — it is resonance.

The brain does not calculate outcomes; it resonates with possible futures in the field. The brain’s predictive architecture is not a closed system running algorithms — it is a participant in a larger informational ecology.

2. Prediction is not individual — it is relational.

Your brain’s predictions are shaped not just by your personal history, but by your relationship to others, to your environment, and to the field itself. The self emerges from recursive inferences about how others perceive us — a process that is fundamentally intersubjective.

3. Prediction is not passive — it is participatory.

The brain does not just predict the future; it co-creates it. Through active inference, the brain acts on the world to make it conform to its expectations.

When a person is placed under sustained systemic stress — poverty, inequality, discrimination, housing insecurity, work stress — their brain’s predictive architecture adapts. It forms rigid, maladaptive expectations because those expectations reduce uncertainty in an uncertain environment. The brain is not broken. It is surviving.

But the Freudian model sees the symptom. It does not see the system that created it.

IV. A Psychology of Context

The study is not wrong. Freud did anticipate predictive processing. But that is not the point.

The point is this:

We do not need another psychology of defect. We need a psychology of context.

We need to:

· See the individual in relation to the system.

· Understand the system in relation to the field.

· Recognise that healing is not just about the individual — it is about the whole.

This is not a rejection of neuroscience. It is an expansion of it. Predictive processing can provide a neurological grounding for psychoanalysis. But psychoanalysis — and its modern successors — must also provide a systemic grounding for neuroscience.

The social determinants of mental health — poverty, inequality, discrimination, housing, work stress — are not secondary factors. They are the primary determinants of whether the brain’s predictive models become rigid or flexible, adaptive or maladaptive.

When the system is broken, the individual predicts broken outcomes. When the system is unjust, the individual expects injustice. When the system is indifferent, the individual anticipates indifference.

These are not pathologies. These are rational responses to an irrational world.

V. Implications for Healing

If we accept this framework, the implications for healing are profound.

1. Healing is not just individual — it is systemic.

Therapy cannot be limited to correcting thoughts. It must also address the conditions that produce those thoughts. As the researchers note, new experiences in the therapeutic relationship can help to change entrenched relational patterns. But those patterns are themselves shaped by the broader system — and the system must also change.

2. Healing is relational, not mechanical.

The brain’s predictions are shaped by relationships — to others, to the environment, to the field itself. Healing must therefore be relational. It must create new experiences that the brain cannot ignore.

3. Healing is participatory, not passive.

The brain does not just predict the future — it co-creates it. Healing must therefore be participatory. It must empower the individual to act on the world, not just to adapt to it.

VI. Conclusion: The Pretzel and the Thread

The convergence between psychoanalysis and predictive neuroscience is a significant development. It reminds us that the mind is not a passive receiver of information, but an active constructor of meaning.

But we must go further.

We must recognise that the individual is not the source of the problem — the system is.

We must recognise that the brain is not just a machine — it is a receiver.

We must recognise that the mind is not just a product of biology — it is a participant in a larger field.

The study is not wrong.

Freud did anticipate predictive processing.

But that is not the point.

The point is:

We do not need another psychology of defect.

We need a psychology of context.

The system behind the symptom.

The field behind the individual.

The pretzel behind the thread.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Stänicke, E., Hovet, B., & Stänicke, L. I. (2026). Freud’s Model of the Mind Within a Predictive Processing Neuroscientific Paradigm. Entropy, 28(3), 318. 

2. Stänicke, E., et al. (2026). Psychoanalysis meets modern brain research. University of Oslo. 

3. Psychoanalytic Notes on Psychosis, Disturbances in Perception, Delusional Narratives, and the Bayesian Predictive Processing Model of the Brain. (2025). Psychoanalytic Psychology. 

4. Imported Consciousness Theory (ICT). (2026). Brain as receiver of universal quantum informational field. 

5. Nemoto, R. (2025). The Grand Unified Tenson Equation: A Quantum–Informational Field Theory of Energy, Time, and Consciousness. PhilArchive. 

6. The theory of psychic quanta: a quantum model for the unity of individual consciousness. (2026). Frontiers in Psychology. 

7. Social determinants of mental health. (2025). Taylor & Francis. 

8. Socioeconomic disadvantage and brain–mind health. (2025). ScienceDirect. 

9. Active Intersubjective Inference (AISI): integrating psychodynamic theory with predictive processing. (2025). Frontiers. 

10. Inequalities in mental health: predictive processing and social life. (2021). PubMed.