Summary

Portrait of Bertrand Russell Bertrand Russell An Outline of Philosophy — Chapter 16 (1927)

Do we know events in us which would not be included in an absolutely complete knowledge of physics? I mean by a complete knowledge of physics a knowledge not only of physical laws, but also of what we may call geography, i.e. the distribution of energy throughout space-time. If the question is put in this way, I think it is quite clear that we do know things not included in physics. A blind man could know the whole of physics, but he could not know what things look like to people who can see, nor what is the difference between red and blue as seen.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Bertrand Russell Bertrand Russell An Outline of Philosophy — Chapter 16 (1927)

Watson's view as to what is most certain is one which is in entire accordance with common sense. All psychological matters the plain man regards as more or less open to question, but he has no doubts about his office, his morning train, the tax-collector, the weather, and the other blessings of this life. It may amuse him, in an idle hour, to listen to someone playing with the idea that life is a dream, or suggesting that the thoughts of the people in the train are more real than the train.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Bertrand Russell Bertrand Russell An Outline of Philosophy — Chapter 16 (1927)

I think dreams must count as "thought", in the sense that they lie outside physics. They may be accompanied by movements, but knowledge of them is not knowledge of these movements. Indeed all knowledge as to movements of matter is inferential, and the knowledge which a scientific man should take as constituting his primary data is more like our knowledge of dreams than like our knowledge of the movements of rats or heavenly bodies. To this extent, I should say, Descartes is in the right as against Watson.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature