Very interesting. Haven't read the other comments yet, but is this supposed to be an argument against naive realism?

I like where you are going, but it would help me if you could explain how step 3 follows from step 2.  Suppose the content of my visual state is an event that took place a little while ago.  Why does this imply that my visual state represents, rather than contains, that event?  I am not sure what it means to say that the past can't exist in the present, or why this is relevant.  Why couldn't I say that my visual state contains, rather than represents, an event that doesn't exist in the present (whatever that means)? Or why can't I say that it contains the present fact designated by "A little while ago, this"?

All of this is very interesting to me because I am currently thinking about the explanatory power of naive realism.  It would help me if you were more explicit.

best,

Mohan