Compairing photonic and brain wavelengths

Here's what I've got as a hypothesis so far, let me know what /sci/ thinks.

Photons operate at particular wavelengths and brain waves operate at particular wavelengths. The two are never in sync. Therefore, when photons refract and enter the human optics, the brain wavelengths at the time are what interpret the photonic refraction wavelengths. It does so because the two are not synonymous. Only differentiation can be distinguishable. The change in wavelengths are what allow us to perceive variance within photonic wavelengths. However, my postulate is that there then should be a means, by choice thought-experiment, to alter brain wavelengths to clarify or alter refracting photonic wavelengths within the realm of perception. As an example, you should be able to slow down time because your mind is now operating at a higher frequency compared to the frequency of photonic wavelengths. Perceivable events should hypothetically slow down. Another example might be how to reinforce distinctive colors. Allow the permeation of photonic refraction into the human optics, distinguish them mentally, and force-project that distinguishing characteristic back onto the perception. (See the color, identify the color, know the color as you are looking at it) The process, hypothetically, should be similar to a force-feedback loop which ever-increases the allowability of refracting photonic wavelengths to permeate the ocular senses and equally be project from the mind's perception back onto the perceived reality. The color should intensify.

I want to make it clear. Reality isn't what's changing, perception is what is changing. I would like to state lastly, this is still in the experimental phase and I wouldn't not recommend personal experiments especially where direct photonic exposure to the ocular senses is concerned. You may go blind. It must be done gradually over time.

tl;dr
We already know high frequency strobe lighting can give the impression you're looking at a very choppy animation of a scene.

Also, clarification of a point:
"Ocular senses" are defined in respect to two primary nerve clusters - the retina located at the back of the eye (opposed to the pupil) and the occipital lobe of the mammalian brain.  Shining light onto an unaltered exposed brain (on any region or lobe) does not produce a sufficiently noticeable electrochemical (neurochemical) effect in the said brain.   Optogenetics, the closest realization of what you suggest, uses a "tainted" brain.  Shining light onto an exposed retina - the classical case - causes a series of controlled stimulated reactions that translates the light into a electrical graph that reconstitutes/translates its appearance to the brain.  Typically, a ten millisecond pause between something happening and recognition of something happening occurs, closely tied to how often an individual's retina "refreshes the image;" the rate of communication between the retina and the occipital lobe is tied to the neuron path through the optic nerve and is mostly fixed.  Do I understand you correctly by defining "ocular senses" as one of these two portions of the mammalian anatomy?

>>2
through the eyes, genius. But the mind interprets what the eyes see. So if the mind chooses to see more, more light will enter the eyes as the iris opens allowing more light to enter. The brain must then alter it's frequency slightly in order to interpret ever-increasing amounts of light. This increase in brain activity decreases the rate of light-intervals so you don't just see bright white, but you see color variations. When you say fixed, I interpret that to mean you've never tried it yourself. Take your time trying to say how biology is, I'm on the front lines changing how my mind functions, interprets information, and operates with ever-increasing results.

I almost feel guilty for not being scientifically savvy enough to state the correct terminology to share such perceivable delights with the human race. My sense of touch has increased from other experiments, as well as my sense of smell, my sense of taste, my sense of hearing, and even my sense of sight. Jesus, I haven't even introduced the ingredient of pain to stimulate such increases in brain activity in this discussion. Manual pre-breathing is also a key ingredient to providing the proper environment for such brain activities to flourish.

You can state that human anatomy is fixed, but seriously, I'm not buying it. If you can move and make choices, then you are not fixed.

I wish I had the technology to do such experiments. I'd like to train people how to do this with their senses. It's a fascinating means to altering thoughts for new perspectives. It keeps the mind open to new-crazy ideas.

So if the mind chooses to see more, more light will enter the eyes as the iris opens allowing more light to enter.
That's called "focusing."

The brain must then alter it's frequency slightly in order to interpret ever-increasing amounts of light.
The amount of light that can enter the eye at a given dilation is fixed and other spectra of light - ultraviolet and infrared - are either not detected or lost in a sea of the visible spectrum.  When I say "fixed," I'm not being retarded; light moves at a fixed speed; electrical impulses move at a metabolic, predictable speed.  Even if the human mind can be rewired, which it can, adjusting your gamma brainwaves will only work up until the physical hard limit.  What you are calling a temporal perception effect is probably reported as a "tide" of synapses originating in the thalamus, sweeping across the brain from front to back, 40 times per second (gamma), drawing different neuronal circuits into sync with will and awareness.  Calling it "the perception of time" is a bit excessive; I'd say it's more like "increasing the FPS."

When you say fixed, I interpret that to mean you've never tried it yourself.
And I can't attempt your experiments.  You haven't posted an experimental set-up or what qualifies as acceptable control premises.  The most I can tell is that I would need intense light and an electroencephalograph.  The "perception of success," if you will, alone is not enough.  I do know that research like this has been conducted before: it's formally called brain entrainment, but reported affects usually involve focusing on or against stimulus or causing known states ranging from heighten paranoid awareness to coma (making a subject fall asleep is a common goal).

>>4
for a scientist you sure are boring as hell.

I guess life is just too mundane for ya then?