***

```yaml

---

id: fn.1

title: "You Can't Copy a Process"

parent: step.01

extends: step.02

connects: fn.0, fn.0.f, fn.2, step.06

status: complete

contains: fn.1.a, fn.1.b, fn.1.c

source: "Maturana & Varela, Luhmann, Glasersfeld"

---

```

***

NOTE: new readers, this field note (fn.1) belongs to a 12 part series - Steps to an Ecology of Bitcoin. Optional, but not neccessay to read The first Article: [Part 1: Definition Problem](https://primal.net/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzphnw7gaw5q2dpxqmzhm7al5pky5hmfvcy07urp2czqyh78s4y0c5qq08xar9wpej6ar094skutt9vdhkcmm80ykk7e3dvf5hgcm0d9hqvhea2f)

## The Bridge

In [step.01](https://primal.net/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzphnw7gaw5q2dpxqmzhm7al5pky5hmfvcy07urp2czqyh78s4y0c5qq08xar9wpej6ar094skutt9vdhkcmm80ykk7e3dvf5hgcm0d9hqvhea2f), we confronted the definition problem: *What is Bitcoin?* Your answer reveals your framework, not the thing itself.

In [step.02](https://primal.net/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzphnw7gaw5q2dpxqmzhm7al5pky5hmfvcy07urp2czqyh78s4y0c5qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3xamnwvaz7tmsw4e8qmr9wpskwtn9wvhsq8rpw46x7ur0d9jhx6tn94sj6er9v4cz6umede6xsetnd9esk4pvd9), we encounter autopoiesis: self-production, self-making, the organization of the living.

**fn.1** bridges these: You cannot copy a process. You cannot transfer understanding. You cannot orange-pill someone through information alone.

This is the deepest implication of autopoiesis for Bitcoin education.

***

## Part I: The Core Insight

### What "Self-Production" Means

The word *autopoiesis* comes from Greek:

* **autos** = self

* **poiesis** = creation, production, making

A living system produces itself. Not just its products—**itself**.\

\

This is extremely important to note the self-reference. often we are taught about the classic linear A + B leads to a outcome called C. Then the reference evolved to circular reference - like the classic thermostat example. Next the concept of reflexivity where A + B leads back to A . Here A refers to A, and with this simple notion a new world opens up to understand the world around us.\

\

The components that make up the system are produced by the system's own processes.

Maturana and Varela (1980):

> "An autopoietic machine is a machine organized as a network of processes of production of components that produces the components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes that produced them; and (ii) constitute it as a concrete unity in the space in which they exist."

**The key phrase:** "continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes that produced them."

The system doesn't just HAVE processes—it IS its processes; and those processes produce the very components that enable the processes.

### Why This Matters for Bitcoin

If Bitcoin is autopoietic (as Luhmann would argue), then:

* Bitcoin produces Bitcoin

* The process cannot be copied from outside

* Understanding must be constructed from within

If Bitcoin is merely organizationally closed (as Mingers would argue), then:

* Bitcoin maintains itself through circular processes

* The organization persists, but components don't self-produce

* Understanding can potentially be transmitted

**Either way:** You cannot simply TELL someone what Bitcoin is and expect them to understand. The process of understanding is itself autopoietic—it produces itself from within the learner.

***

Part II:\

The Maturana vs Luhmann Distinction

-----------------------------------

### A. The Biological Position (Maturana)

Maturana insisted that autopoiesis applies ONLY to living biological systems:

![]()

*~~Order System Autopoietic? First Cells YES Second Organisms (multicellular) YES Third Social systems NO — "mere aggregates"~~*

His argument: Social systems lack physical spatial boundaries and do not literally produce their own components in the biological sense.

> "Social systems would be composed of individuals and their communicative and linguistic recursions... \[They] are mere aggregates of the third order." — Maturana & Varela, *The Tree of Knowledge* (1987)

### B. The Social Position (Luhmann)

Luhmann made a radical counter-move. He redefined what counts as a "component":

> "The unity of an element is not ontically pre-given. Instead, the element is constituted as a unity only by the system that enlists it as an element to use it in relations." — Luhmann, *Social Systems* (1995)

For Luhmann:

* Components of social systems are **communications**, not people

* Communications produce communications

* The system is operationally closed

* This IS autopoiesis, properly understood

### The Bitcoin Application

![]()

*~~Position Components of Bitcoin Autopoietic? Maturana Physical? None. Informational only. NO Luhmann Transactions (as communications) YES~~*

**The Luhmann argument for Bitcoin:**

1. Transactions produce transactions (each UTXO enables future transactions)

2. The system constitutes what counts as "valid" through its own operations

3. The boundary is determined operationally (consensus rules)

4. The elements are temporal events (blocks that vanish into the chain)

This is structurally identical to Luhmann's description of social autopoiesis.

### The Radical Constructivist View

From the RC perspective, Mingers' critique misses the point entirely.

Mingers asks: "What are the physical components?"

Luhmann responds: "You're looking for the wrong thing."

The question isn't whether Bitcoin has physical components (it doesn't need them). The question is whether Bitcoin constitutes its own elements through its own operations.

**It does.**

The insistence on physical components reflects a residual realism—the assumption that "real" systems must have "real" (physical) parts. But from the RC view, there is no access to a "real" world independent of the observer. There are only viable constructions.

Bitcoin constructs its own viability. It IS autopoietic in the only sense that matters.

***

## Part III: The Rattle-Spoon Dilemma Revisited

### Glasersfeld's Infant

From **fn.0.f** (Glasersfeld's scheme theory), recall the rattle-spoon dilemma:

1. Infant constructs "rattle scheme" (shake → noise)

2. Encounters spoon

3. Assimilates to rattle scheme—perceives spoon AS rattle

4. Shakes spoon → NO NOISE → **perturbation**

Two paths:

* **Path A (Minor):** "Non-rattle" category. Rejection. Scheme preserved.

* **Path B (Major):** Spoon hits table → DIFFERENT BUT REWARDING NOISE → "Spoon-banging scheme." **Enchantment.** Entirely new scheme.

### Why You Can't Copy the Process

The infant's "spoon-banging scheme" cannot be transferred. You cannot TELL the infant about spoon-banging. The scheme must be **constructed through perturbation and accommodation**.

This is the mechanism behind "you can't copy a process":

![]()

*~~What Can Be Copied What Cannot Be Copied Information Understanding Description Experience Instructions Schemes Content Process~~*

### The Bitcoin Parallel

The TradFi person has a "money scheme" (trust institution → value preservation).

Encounters Bitcoin. Assimilates to investment scheme—perceives Bitcoin AS weird investment.

Holds Bitcoin → DOESN'T BEHAVE AS EXPECTED → **perturbation**

Two paths:

* **Path A:** "Not real money." Dismissal. TradFi scheme preserved.

* **Path B:** Self-custody/HODL/first cycle → DIFFERENT BUT REWARDING RESULT → "Bitcoin scheme." **Orange pill.** Entirely new scheme.

**You cannot orange-pill someone through explanation.** You can only create conditions for perturbation. The accommodation must happen within the person's own cognitive autopoiesis.

***

## Part IV: Why "Telling" Doesn't Work

### The Instructionist Fallacy

From my Experiential Education Alt-thesis paper:

> "A typical teaching program would represent content in a particular format, often with multi-media, through a linear sequence of screens... Learning in this context was achieved by assimilating content—consistent with the transmissionist learning model."

This is the instructionist fallacy: the belief that understanding can be transmitted like data.

### Glasersfeld on the Limit

> "The pupil as well as the teacher are mutually closed systems with regards to their experiences. Both sides have established their own world, but now the teacher wants to enrich the world of the pupil. **No direct transfer of new ideas is possible, no royal road to learning is available.**" — Glasersfeld (1995)

### Luhmann on Communication

Luhmann makes the same point from a systems perspective:

> "Communication does not achieve this unaided. But it can force disturbances into the form of meaning and thus handle them further."

Communication is not TRANSFER—it is perturbation. It can trigger, but it cannot instruct.

### The Bitcoin Education Implication

![]()

*~~Method What It Does Outcome Explaining Bitcoin Provides information Assimilation to existing scheme "Bitcoin fixes this" Makes claims Assimilation or rejection Creating conditions Enables perturbation Possible accommodation Lived experience Triggers enchantment New scheme construction~~*

**The orange pill is not information—it's the moment of enchantment when Bitcoin produces a different-but-rewarding result that cannot be assimilated to existing schemes.**

***

## Part V: Connecting to Richmond's Learning Processes

### The Leaking Problem

From **fn.0.a** (Richmond Synthesis), recall:

![]()

*~~Process Type Leaks? 1. Depositing Training YES 2. Conveying mental models Training YES 3. Building shared understanding Teaching NO 4. Building operational capacity Teaching NO 5. Building empathy Teaching NO~~*

**Processes 1-2 leak because they try to COPY processes.** They assume understanding can be transferred. It cannot.

### The Glasersfeld-Richmond Connection

![]()

*~~Glasersfeld Richmond Why It Fails/Succeeds Assimilation Process 1-2 Fits new info into old schemes Accommodation Process 3-5 Constructs new schemes Utilitarian instrumentality Training Produces skills, not understanding Epistemic instrumentality Teaching Produces conceptual coherence~~*

**Process 1-2 try to copy processes. They fail.** **Process 3-5 create conditions for construction. They succeed.**

### The Educational Architecture

This is why "Steps to an Ecology of Bitcoin" cannot simply TELL readers about Bitcoin.

It must:

1. Create perturbations (challenge existing schemes)

2. Provide conditions for accommodation (lived experience, not just information)

3. Build shared understanding (Process 3)

4. Develop operational capacity (Process 4)

5. Generate empathy through perspective-taking (Process 5)

The series is designed as a perturbation machine, not an information delivery system.

***

## Part VI: Autopoiesis as Epistemological Stance

### The Santiago Theory Connection

I wrote extensively on Maturana and Varela's research between 1998-2003 - the core concepts remain relevant today - even more so in the Bitcoin ecosystem,:

> "Perception could no longer be considered as the grasping of an external reality, but rather the specification of one."

This is the epistemological core: We don't perceive a pre-given world—we bring forth a world through our operations.

### Cognition as Process of Life

Capra , the author of "Web of Life", comments on the Santiago theory:

> "The new concept of cognition, the process of knowing, is thus much broader than that of thinking. It involves perception, emotion, and action—the entire process of life."

Cognition IS living. Understanding IS a form of life. Both are autopoietic.

### The Implication for Bitcoin

If cognition is autopoietic, then:

* Understanding Bitcoin = a living process

* It cannot be copied

* It must be grown

* It produces itself through its own operations

The "orange pill" is not a transfer event—it's a birth event. A new scheme comes into existence, produced by its own operations, maintained by its own processes.

***

## Part VII: The Debate Structure

### Two Positions, Fairly Presented

Following the Carl Sagan principle ("The method of science... is far more important than the findings"), we present both positions:

**Position A: Bitcoin is NOT Autopoietic (Maturana/Mingers)**

![]()

*~~Argument Implication Lacks physical components Organizational closure only No membrane/boundary Not a living system Informational, not material Metaphorical application Fails Mingers' step 3 Not rigorously autopoietic~~*

**Position B: Bitcoin IS Autopoietic (Luhmann/RC)**

![]()

*~~Argument Implication Transactions = communications Communications produce communications Consensus = operational boundary System defines its own boundary Elements are temporal events Temporalization makes it autopoietic Components system-constituted No need for physical basis~~*

**The reader chooses.** But either way, you can't copy the process—understanding must be constructed.

***

## Part VIII: Practical Implications

### For Bitcoin Education

1. **Stop trying to explain Bitcoin.** Explanation triggers assimilation, not accommodation.

2. **Create conditions for perturbation.** Design experiences that challenge existing schemes.

3. **Enable lived experience.** First self-custody. First cross-border transaction. First cycle HODL.

4. **Trust the process.** You cannot force the orange pill. You can only create conditions.

5. **Recognize the enchantment moment.** When Bitcoin produces a different-but-rewarding result, the new scheme begins to construct itself.

### For This Series

"Steps to an Ecology of Bitcoin" is not an explanation. It's a perturbation architecture.

Each step creates conditions. Each field note offers a branch for deeper perturbation. The reader constructs their own understanding—or doesn't.

We cannot copy the process into you. We can only trigger the conditions for you to construct it yourself.

***

## Navigation

← Back to \[[step.01|The Definition](https://primal.net/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzphnw7gaw5q2dpxqmzhm7al5pky5hmfvcy07urp2czqyh78s4y0c5qq08xar9wpej6ar094skutt9vdhkcmm80ykk7e3dvf5hgcm0d9hqvhea2f)] ↑ Up to \[[fn.0|Knowledge vs Understanding](https://primal.net/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzphnw7gaw5q2dpxqmzhm7al5pky5hmfvcy07urp2czqyh78s4y0c5qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3xamnwvaz7tmsw4e8qmr9wpskwtn9wvhsqfnxd9jkcepddehhgetn944kummhd3jkgem994m8xtt4dejx2unnw3skuerfdensq8k5lq)] → Forward to \[[step.02|Autopoiesis](https://primal.net/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzphnw7gaw5q2dpxqmzhm7al5pky5hmfvcy07urp2czqyh78s4y0c5qqwxzat5dacx76t9wd5hxttp94jx2ets94ehjmn5dpjhx6tnhsz20d) ]

*>>>>>> COMING SOON - Work In Progress - Link Descriptions for Illustration*

## Branches

* \[\[fn.1.a|Autopoiesis Applied]] — Self-making in detail

* \[\[fn.1.b|The Orange Pill as Transformation]] — Not information, but perturbation

* \[\[fn.1.c|Maturana vs Luhmann]] — The social autopoiesis debate

## Cross-References

* \[\[fn.0.a|Richmond's 5 Processes]] — Why 1-2 leak, 3-5 don't

* \[\[fn.0.f|Glasersfeld's Scheme Theory]] — The mechanism of accommodation

* \[\[fn.0.f1|The Rattle-Spoon Dilemma]] — The master metaphor

* \[\[step.06|Perturbation]] — Trigger, not instruction

* \[\[Autopoiesis Working Paper]] — The full Maturana-Luhmann debate

***

## Summary

**The Core Insight:**

* Autopoiesis means self-production. A process produces itself. You cannot copy it from outside. Understanding is autopoietic—it must construct itself from within. **The Bitcoin Application:**

* You cannot orange-pill through explanation. You can only create conditions for perturbation. The new scheme must construct itself. **The Debate:**

* Maturana says Bitcoin is not autopoietic (lacks physical components). Luhmann says it is (transactions are communications). Either way, understanding cannot be transferred—only triggered. **The Method:**

* This series is a perturbation machine, not an information delivery system. We create conditions. You construct understanding. Or you don't. We cannot copy the process into you.

*fn.1 — You Can't Copy a Process* *Enhanced December 2025*

*"The pupil as well as the teacher are mutually closed systems with regards to their experiences. Both sides have established their own world, but now the teacher wants to enrich the world of the pupil. No direct transfer of new ideas is possible, no royal road to learning is available."* *— Ernst von Glasersfeld*