Hacker News Reader

Comment by friedegg | Hacker News Reader

I was born with cataracts in both eyes. One was removed when I was a toddler (including the lens), and the other (with better vision) was left alone until I was a teenager at which point I got an artificial lens implant. I can't see ultraviolet out of my eye without a lens as far as I can tell (or maybe I can and just never noticed).

View on HN

You might be able to see a difference in flowers. Many flowers have markings that usually only bees are able to see.

https://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/2012_05_...

It would be a very subtle tweak to your blue perception. UV sensitivity is quite low even without the lens filtering it out.

As cool as accidental historical biohacking is, I think the Monet-UV hypothesis should be taken with a grain of salt.

The argument in favor of it is that Monet was an exceptional trained painter, and one specialized in colors on top of that. He might have been extra sensitive to colors compared to most humans (both in the sense of biological sensory sensitivity, as well as trained ability to perceive colors).

It is possible, if somewhat unlikely, for men to also be tetrachromats.

Color vision is encoded on the X-chromosome, right? And human tetrachromatocy depends on having two X-chromosomes with different color vision genes[0]. So wouldn't a hypothetical tetrachromatic male need to be an XX-chromosome male[1], and on top of that have one of the X-chromosomes carrying the deutanomaly, protanomaly or tritanomaly mutation, and on top of that have this mixture manifest itself as having four color receptors instead of three? Or is there another theoretical way that I'm missing?

If my educated guess is correct then "somewhat unlikely" seems like quite an understatement to me! :D

(I have protanomaly myself, and never considered that men could hypothetically be tetrachormats as well. This was a fun through exercise)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy#Humans

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome

Myself, I've had ICL surgery (Implantable Collamer Lens) as vision correction in both eyes (I wasn't a good candidate for Lasik). With it includes 100% UVA/UVB blocking. It's basically a permanent contact lens implanted behind the iris and in front of the the natural lens. So, sadly, no ultrahuman UV vision for me. My only "bionic" ability is saving my natural lens and retina from UV exposure.

I bet your eyes do a cool robotic ‘shine’ when viewed in some lights (eg. in a dark room with a diffuse light behind the viewer) though.

I dobt know if other people can see it looking at my eyes, but on certain low light conditions, I do see a subtle elongated 'X' sorta looks like a mostly transparent '>---<' at the bottom of my vision. From talking with my Doc, its a small side effect of how they fold the lense implant when they insert it to minimize the size of the incision in the cornea. I dont normally notice it, and since its on the peripheral, it is pretty easy to ignore.

Edit: spelling

What is it like to have an eye with no lense. Does an image still form on your vision in that eye or is it just blur of colour?

It's just really really blurry. I can see colors fine, and if I zoom OSX all the way on my external screen, I can read text. If I only had that vision, I'd probably be able to move around in the world, ie walk to the store, but I'd have a hard time doing many things I take for granted.

I had cataract surgery. I can see the Pleiades at nighttime while most others cannot. Use that constellation as your test if you can.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com