I believe it is in both. Your brain puts together all of the thoughts as to why you love or like a person and your heart eventually feels it. Your brain tells you you like or love someone and your heart feels the emotion. I do not know exactly where the heart came into play and who started the words heart break because we all know your heart doesn't really break. I think your heart beats faster when you are nervous and typically around someone you like you get a little nervous. I do think though the brain is where this all begins. We all know if you are brain dead you are technically dead because your brain tells your body what to produce and what to feel.

All of the reactions that you have named stem from the brain. From what this article said, I would argue that the brain is the source of the feelings and emotion which causes love. Emotional responses stem from the amygdala, the emotional command center for the brain. Because of this, I would conclude that emotion comes from the brain.

According to another study, when you see the person you love the reason your heart starts to beat fast is because of adrenaline. According to Dr. Reginald Ho, the brain sends signals to the adrenal gland, which then secretes hormones and then they go to the heart which causes the heart to beat faster (articles.cnn.com)

There is also another very common cliche. This is the cliche of "love at first sight" Researchers found that yes, there is such thing as love at first sight. So according to this study do you fall in love by you brain or your heart? According to them the answer is the brain but the heart is also involved.

Everybody hears the cliche when someone gets dumped. "My heart hearts" But does it actually hurt? And if it does, is it because they were in love? The point of this blog is to put the end to the mystery and bring out the facts.

According to an analysis by a Syracuse professor, it depends. That is a very broad answer but in her analysis she goes on to explain how when you fall in love you experience a similar sensation to one of using cocaine. You get a euphoric feeling but it also affects certain areas of the brain.

Drivers who are ages 16 to 18 simply cause too many accidents thanks to being distracted on the road with texting and talking on cell phones. Yes, teens have jobs in which they need to drive to work. However, having that job is not worth your life. If you drive to work only to get into a wreck, what's the point? Teens who don't wear seatbelts end up killing themselves in wrecks, so we need to up the minimum driving age to save lives.

I think teens should be able to get driving permits that allow driving with limited privileges before age 18, but should not be turned loose alone behind the wheel until after they are 18. Having adult supervision at all times, when a teen is behind the wheel, should logically reduce the number of accidents while the teen driver has some extra opportunities to gain experience as a driver

About you're point on bad influences new music causes.

1. Not all kids listen to new music these days and not all music has a bad storyline or meaning. Lots of music is poetic and beautiful, even some rap songs (which I consider to mostly be a guy screaming swear words in no tone over loud horrible music).

I don't think music is distracting. And if it is, then it is the students choice to keep listening to the music instead of just taking their earbuds out. If the student knows that the music distracts him/her then they shouldn't listen to it while working but they still might. This is purely their choice. Students just as easily could be distracted by something else. And if a student doesn't want to pay attention in class or learn that is also their choice. Nobody can force them (they can try but I'm betting they would fail).

Music can also help with your creativity in classes such as English or Art. (me and my friends are all writers and artists. Music is our muse so why can't it be to others?)