From PhilPapers forum Philosophy of Mind:

2010-10-20
The time-lag argument for the representational theory of perception
Any self respecting Direct Realist would say of your argument: "fine, you have given a description of your representational theory of perception but this does not affect my view at all.  I believe that I directly experience events in the world, backwardly referred in time or instantaneously one with the events.  All this stuff in the brain is just information processing so that the right words come out to describe my experience." 

I cannot see how the time lag in the way you have described it proves representationalism.  The argument needs a clear demonstration that visual experience is indeed the same as some secondary event that can be timed.  What event that can be timed are you proposing as the substrate of visual experience and how do you know that it is indeed the substrate of visual experience?