I've mostly been googling for studies/information which explain things I do not understand. Most of the studies tend to be on Pubmed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). A lot of references can be found on wikipedia, which is a great resource in itself.
This is paired with playing with neurotransmitter levels using the methods described (and occasionally some less legal ones) and trying to relate feeling to thought. After a while, an intuitive understanding of the terrain that is the body, thought and emotion begins to emerge. Sometimes you feel something new, notice an interaction, make a prediction that neurotransmitter X has relationship Y with neurotransmitter Z, google for studies and are surprised that said relationship has been observed. Intuition is as accurate as the information it's working with - it can sometimes be trusted and other times cannot. I'm a programmer and to me this feels identical to debugging in a messy monolithic legacy codebase. I use the exact same techniques to try to figure my mind out.
I think that it is important to be picky about sources. I do not trust anything which cannot be backed up by a study, though less accurate information can sometimes point you somewhere interesting. I also find it important to tread away from the mainstream with caution, since I'm not an expert in this field. In other words stuff like Reiki is out of the question - it needs to at least be feasible.
This is paired with playing with neurotransmitter levels using the methods described (and occasionally some less legal ones) and trying to relate feeling to thought. After a while, an intuitive understanding of the terrain that is the body, thought and emotion begins to emerge. Sometimes you feel something new, notice an interaction, make a prediction that neurotransmitter X has relationship Y with neurotransmitter Z, google for studies and are surprised that said relationship has been observed. Intuition is as accurate as the information it's working with - it can sometimes be trusted and other times cannot. I'm a programmer and to me this feels identical to debugging in a messy monolithic legacy codebase. I use the exact same techniques to try to figure my mind out.
I think that it is important to be picky about sources. I do not trust anything which cannot be backed up by a study, though less accurate information can sometimes point you somewhere interesting. I also find it important to tread away from the mainstream with caution, since I'm not an expert in this field. In other words stuff like Reiki is out of the question - it needs to at least be feasible.