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?