This question has been bothering me for a while...

[Mistral]

I think one eye still leaves you with some depth perception, at least when you've gotten used to it, doesn't it? Not that I know very many one-eyed people, but I don't think all of them run into stuff on a regular basis.

True, you can tell the distance from something by how high it appears to be relative to something else or by size consistency/linear perspective (The fact that parallel lines in a direction away from you appear to converge to a point), something that experience helps with a lot, but the stereoscopic view of two eyes allows for a better ability to determine distance (See here), and going from two eyes to one in a hurry will lead to initial trouble determining distance until you've had time to permanently adapt to it. Even people with two eyes can be confused if you mess with linear perspective just right, like in the following pictures:

Red lines are the same height.

Men are the same height.

Black horizontal lines are the same length.

[Sprung]

As a person with little depth perception, I can attest to the adaptation. I can drive, walk, etc., just fine...but give me a depth perception test, and it is hilarious

The test I had back in high school was the one with 2 toy cars attached to strings. You view the car setting at uneven distances from you. Then you are asked to place your eyes at table-level, and pull both strings until the cars are where you preceive them to be even.

I wasn't even close...

[SpinNuYasha]

When I read the question, I was thinking a possible answer would be that having one's eyes in that position would result in some sort of 'byakugan'-vision. [/Naruto reference]

[Dingy]

Okay, this may be the dumbest question, but it's been bothering me. If you were able to take your eyes out of your head without them drying out, and put one eye facing foward and the other looking behind, what would you see? Would ther be a line right down the middle? Maybe this will get you guys wondering too.

Won't the one facing behind be redundant, b/c all your nerves will be facing outward, which I don't think will be a very happy sight.

[brit]

I suppose a less sensible answer that could be given is you would role around on the floor in pain at having taken your eye out.

Hilarious.

I knew someone who had both of his eyes knocked out of his head during a rugby match. They were hanging out of his head by his nerves. The doctor just popped the eyes back into the sockets. lol, he had to wear two eye patches, I know it's painful and all, but the thought of someone wearing two eye patches is hilarious.

It gets no funnier than this. Seriously.

Completely unrelated note, can someone please add a multi post quote thing or something? Like VB2. Copying, pasting, and typing the quote tags for more than one post is slightly less annoying than just checking a checkbox on your way down reading the thread. Just an idea. I'm sure it's not impossible, although slightly pointless. Even then the pros outweigh the cons, right?

[Paul Miller]

What should really worry you is that THIS question has been bothering you for a while.

[Huey Kruthas]

OK, a few of you were talking about depth perception, and I happen to know a one-eyed person. the depth perception isn't that big of a problem, I have two eyes and he can catch things when they are thrown at him better than I can. I guess you just get used to it, I try not to ask him about it because I would suppose it is a touchy subject.

[Jaws]

What should really worry you is that THIS question has been bothering you for a while.

Why's that? It's now bad to think about things too much? --'

[Paul Miller]

Why's that? It's now bad to think about things too much? --'

No. Thinking is fine. Thinking about something like this is... cause for concern. I can't imagine why you would think about this....

[Jaws]

Cause I'm curious...? Duh.

[MattP]

You'd see darkness in the eye you took out and put back in, since all the nerves and whatnot wont be able to connect to what there supposed to. Although it wouldnt surprise me if someone has tried something like this before.

[Dingy]

No one seems to be answering my question--"Won't the one facing behind be redundant, b/c all your nerves will be facing outward?"

Someone please answer.

[Mistral]

Not certain what you mean by that. The optic nerve connecting the brain to the eye are assumed to be still connected to the eye, I would think, otherwise you wouldn't see a thing at all from the eye (Besides which, the eye and optic nerve are wired together pretty tightly). Pain endings are irrelevant, and motor endings don't act directly on the eye, but on muscles around it.

[polobunny]

As a person with little depth perception, I can attest to the adaptation. I can drive, walk, etc., just fine...but give me a depth perception test, and it is hilarious

The test I had back in high school was the one with 2 toy cars attached to strings. You view the car setting at uneven distances from you. Then you are asked to place your eyes at table-level, and pull both strings until the cars are where you preceive them to be even.

I wasn't even close...

Wow, that gotta suck when your playing curling. XD

Zephyr is right about all the nerves thing. Did anyone of you even cut some bull's eye in your biology class? You can clearly see the only thing needed for your to see (not in the eye, everything going external) is only the optical nerve, not the muscle going around it.
Btw, those eyes are just a pain to cut, I always though it would be easy to smash someones eye with a pen or something sharp, but even with a scalpel it's uberly difficult.
Another thing... Anyone tried to steal a crystalline lens froma bull's eye? Those things makes great superballs...

[Golgotha]

I thought that eyes were always a bitch to remove from the body but they seemed to cut easily enough if you could get a hold of them.