Is it fair to say our perception is based on 'quanta exchange'? And is it also fair to say that the quanta we exchange comes from a present state and is perceived in the future of the initiating phenomenon that occurs as a present event? Would it be fair to say that perhaps there are beings so arranged that they do not base perception on quanta exchange that originate in a planar present to be experienced in a past framework for the receiver but a future framework for the emitter? ... If virtual particles are popping in and out of 'existence', could they actually be existing in a different temporal orientation that intersects our orientation occasionally? ... I don't think Mister 'Zero Point Field' would dislike the notion.
On first blush, the term "quanta exchange" threw me - because perception for an observer is usually associated with a transformation from quantum states to classic (or macro) physics. That is the focus of a number of books by Roger Penrose - an area of physics which is lacking in his view.
The rest of it I need to sleep on because the terminology of receiver/emitter in past/future has a correlation to the violation of physical causality by an extra time dimension (F-theory). More tomorrow...
Maybe not so "occasionally," MHGinTN. If the "Zero Point Field" is the primary universal vacuum (or carried by it) then it would be omnipresent spatially and temporally. Emissions of virtual photons may be a constant process that facilitates "successful communications" in biological processes, including sense perception. At least this is a conjecture that is receiving increasing attention these days.