We develop new theory from a broad case-study approach to explore a better understanding of what constitutes knowledge and its value as identifiable to human-machine teams. From past research, this trail of exploration will lead to these initial questions: What is the value of debate in the furtherance of knowledge? Will machines with AI be able to contribute to a debate if we humans cannot define it or determine its value sufficiently for a machine’s understanding, contribution, exploration and identification? Like humans, as teammates, machines must be able to determine with AI what constitutes the usable knowledge that contributes to a team’s success in the field (e.g., testing "knowledge" in the field, identifying new knowledge, using knowledge to develop innovation) or its failure (viz., trouble shooting; identifying weaknesses; discovering vulnerabilities, hiding by deception). It matters not whether a debate is public, private or unexpressed by an individual human or machine agent alone; we speculate in this exploration that the process advances the science of autonomous human-machine teams and assists in interpretable machine learning. We conclude with questions and a speculation: How does a human become aware or express its awareness of knowledge? Can a machine be as expressive as its human teammates? And how does a human-machine teammate become aware that its teammates possess sufficient knowledge to perform a task? We speculate that the structure of “knowledge," once found, is resistant to alternatives (i.e., it is ordered); that its functional utility is generalizable; and that its applications are multifaceted (akin to maximum entropy production). The complexity of the team is taken into consideration in our search for knowledge, which can also be used as an information metric.

Big data is considered to be the solution to many complex problems, but its application appears to be relegated to the problems that are factorable (e.g., the tensor-like operations which reflect separable elements), not the non-factorable data from teamwork, team intelligence, and possibly not individual consciousness. In contrast, the quantum likeness of interdependence is set apart from the standard science of teams by recognizing a measurement problem between a team and its individual teammates, and between individual beliefs and actions. Teams that concern us are based on artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) systems, which we find lacking for two reasons. First, neither AI nor ML models the human's timeless need for debate to solve a problem at the social level when facing uncertainty or complexity, where the debate of proposed actions serves to establish the boundaries of a problem in reality, no matter how complex nor uncertain. Second, at the individual level exists the illusion of a unified reality propagated by a bifurcated brain that we assume is split to determine a context with narrative and bounded spaces. We hypothesize that the quantum-likeness of interdependence applied to autonomous human-machine teams suggests that at the social level, debate models an individual's bifurcated brain, providing advantages for human-machine teams in freer systems over those oppressed by command and control systems (e.g., authoritarian regimes). Human-machine teams are coming, but they are not yet available, forcing us to rely on data from human systems. We close with plans for future research.