"We do not see things as they are. We see them as we are." ~ Anain Nin

Man has believed life is absolute material and the world is conveyed by the five senses and dependent on them. We think we see the external world, but it is an illusion. Light is photons sent to the lens refracted to the retina and the electrical signals to the neurons that forms image in the back of the brain. All five senses are electrical signals. We never confront original matter existing outside of us, but an electrical copy of it formed in the brain. We are misled that they are real copies. You are not in a room, but the room is in you. Since we cannot reach the external world, how do we know it exist? We cannot. We live by the perceptions in our minds. We believe in objects because of perceptions, but they are only ideas in the mind. If you could see the brain, it is a perception too. So where is "I," the one who sees?

Blah. Materialism, conflates our perceptions and consciousness (as subjective as they may be) with materialistic phenomena and with materialistic causes as well, despite our brain’s lack of ability to keep up at times. Actually, according to modern analysis, the brain keeps up better than we thought it did, but the subliminal purposely withholds information from our conscious mind to keep it from overloading. It is capable of overloading because it has material and physical limits. A non-material consciousness should theoretically have no such limits.

How do we know that the external universe exists? We do not need to know the absolute nature of the external universe to know it exists, we just need to know that it’s rules are independent of us. That is to say, they work despite our direct observations or interactions. In the modern world, we can prove this through instrumentation, process, experimentation, and measurement. What we collectively call science. And since we can observe reactions that are independent of our actions or observations, this establishes that there must be an external agency or force which dictates the nature and physical laws of our universe—which are not a part of our internal mechanism (the mind).

Now, some people might say that because we are still forced to observe independent measurement with our senses, that the texts on the screen and the stars in the sky may all just be illusions provided by the mind. But then, one has to ask, how does these elaborate illusions evolve in a primordial mind that must not have had any differentiation of thought since there is no external, materialistic universe to inspire such adaptation and complexity? And why does the illusion continue to act in ways that are independent and contrary to the will of the individual providing them?

The only place these questions lead is to an external mind, or "super mind" that controls the illusions for us, and makes sure that each person is observing the same illusion, even though there is no materiality outside ourselves that can link each of us together; or no internal materialism capable of dividing a undifferentiated mind into many minds (all sentient beings). And this of course, brings us to the notion of an older evolved being, a super being, a divine being - a God. Thus, we find that we are no longer discussing science, and have found religion.

Okay, let’s set aside the topic about religion and super-complex metaphysics.

Our brain knows when to stop collecting electrical signals to broaden our images, in other words, framing our pictures. It is probably something akin to the pain response. We can physically perceive when something hurts, or is going to hurt even though we haven’t actually applied the pressure to cause it to hurt. It’s pretty much automatic. The brain may be able to tell the same for when too much "information pressure" might be harmful.

Humans have two brains, actually. The one we know about that we use to surf on the internet, and the one we don’t know that hides from us the fact that we’ve been spending hours on the internet. We don’t realize what that second brain has done until we glance at the clock. But I think that if we saw more of what that second brain actually does, our reality would be a lot more objective.

Scientists used to think that the brain just couldn’t keep up with all the objective information coming our way, so there were gaps. However, modern neuroscience shows that we are in fact aware of a lot of information that our brain just chooses not to share. Some estimates are as high as 90% of all information we perceive being discarded by the brain.

All the thing we see are raw data. Information is always useful. Our all senses are processing data, but information is what is useful. There are many things which are processed and deleted after a while. Data is just the light patterns. Information is what distinguishes those light patterns into shapes of objects. Data is a photon. Information is color.

Data is unprocessed information. Information that is processed is just referred to as information. Knowledge is processed information evaluated. Now, since color does not actually exist and is just the brain’s processed interpretation of different light frequencies, that makes color information. In a broader sense, I suppose color could be considered data, but that doesn’t change the fact that what we see, including processed color, is information once the brain gets a hold of it, whether it is conscious or subliminal. And if we were to approach it from a quantum mechanics angle, everything, including the data is technically information. But that probably won’t be necessary.

The colors are not colors. Inside the brain it is dark. The brain interprets color from photons. And why photons look different to brain, you might ask? Photons do not look different to the brain, they look different to the eyes. The photoreceptors in your eye reacts differently to different wavelengths of particles. Since your photoreceptors cannot think, they do not make a determination, but simply react automatically. Depending on how they react, they send a signal to your brain. Based on which type of signal it received, the brain then creates the INFORMATION for which a color is determined.

Further research shows that although any particular color can be identified by the individual (your blue is my blue), the brain does not see the same blue as another person because the signals are interpreted in a unique way by each brain (my brain’s interpretation of blue is not your brain’s interpretation of blue).

In other words, your brain could be interpreting blue and showing you blue, while my brain can be interpreting blue and showing me what you would call green, and we’d have no way of knowing since we each recognize these colors as blue in our brain. They show up different to us even though they come from the save wavelength of light. So, color is not data. It is not raw information that can be valued objectively. It is the brain’s interpretive information. The brain does not "see" color, it makes it.